this page intentionally left blank - gsaauctions.gov · facilities storage building, the antenna...

Naval Facilities Engineering Command Mid-Atlantic Norfolk, Virginia

Final

Fiscal Year 2018 Site Management Plan

Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Bedford, Massachusetts

September 2017

Distribution Statement A: Approved for public release: distribution unlimited

• ~ Naval Facilities Engineering Command

This page intentionally left blank

FINAL

FISCAL YEAR 2018 SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN

NAVAL WEAPONS STATION INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT BEDFORD,MASSACHUSETTS

COMPREHENSIVE LONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NAVY (CLEAN) CONTRACT

Submitted to: Department of the Navy

Naval Facilities Engineering Command Mid-Atlantic 9324 Maryland Avenue Norfolk, VA 23511-3095

Submitted by: Tetra Tech

5700 Lake Wright Drive, Suite 102 Norfolk, Virginia 23502

CONTRACT NUMBER N62470-16-D-9008 CONTRACT TASK ORDER WE20

SEPTEMBER 2017

PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF: APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION BY:

ROBERTF.D\/IS,JR. PROJECT MANAGER TETRA TECH PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA

['Tl:] TETRA TECH

comp l ex wor l d f CLEAR S OLUTION S'

091708/P ii


Fiscal Year 2018 Site Management Plan Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant — Bedford, Massachusetts CTO WE20 Table of Contents

091708/P iii

Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ iii

List of Figures .................................................................................................................. iv

List of Tables ................................................................................................................... iv

List of Appendices ........................................................................................................... iv

Acronyms ........................................................................................................................ v

1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 NWIRP Bedford Background ......................................................................... 1-1

1.1.1 Activity Description .................................................................................. 1-2

1.1.2 Activity History ......................................................................................... 1-5

1.1.3 Environmental History ............................................................................. 1-5

1.2 SMP Sites...................................................................................................... 1-7

1.3 Report Organization ...................................................................................... 1-8

2.0 Site Description and Groupings ......................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Site Descriptions ........................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.1 Site 1 — Old Incinerator Ash Disposal Area ............................................ 2-1

2.1.2 Site 2 — Components Laboratory Fuel Tank .......................................... 2-4

2.1.3 Site 3 — Chlorinated Solvent Groundwater Plumes ................................ 2-5

2.1.4 Site 4 — BTEX Plume ........................................................................... 2-13

2.2 Site Groupings ............................................................................................. 2-16

3.0 Regulatory Process Activities ............................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation and Site Screening Process ....... 3-1

3.2 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study ....................................................... 3-2

3.3 Removal Action ............................................................................................. 3-2

3.4 Interim Remedial Actions .............................................................................. 3-3

3.5 Remedial Design/Remedial Action ................................................................ 3-3

4.0 Site Ranking ...................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Requirements for Relative Site Evaluations .................................................. 4-1

4.2 Relative Risk Site Evaluation Framework ...................................................... 4-1

4.3 Summary of Site Risk Ranking for nwirp Bedford .......................................... 4-3


091708/P iv

5.0 Schedule ........................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Primary Documents ....................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Secondary Documents .................................................................................. 5-2

5.3 Durations ....................................................................................................... 5-3

6.0 NWIRP Bedford Cleanup Team ......................................................................... 6-1

7.0 Abridged Bibliography ....................................................................................... 7-1

8.0 References ........................................................................................................ 8-1

List of Figures 1-1 Site Area Map .................................................................................................... 1-3 1-2 Facility Plan ....................................................................................................... 1-4 2-1 Site Location Map .............................................................................................. 2-2

List of Tables 2-1 Summary of Findings Site 1 — Old Incinerator Ash Disposal Area ................... 2-3 2-2 Summary of Findings Site 2 — Components Laboratory Fuel Tank .................. 2-5 2-3 Summary of Findings Site 3 — Chlorinated Solvent Groundwater Plume —

Northern Plume ................................................................................................. 2-9 2-4 Summary of Findings Site 3 – Chlorinated Solvent Groundwater Plume —

Southern Plume ............................................................................................... 2-12 2-5 Summary of Findings Site 4 — BTEX Plume .................................................. 2-15 4-1 Relative Risk Ranking Results ........................................................................... 4-3 7-1 Abridged Bibliography ....................................................................................... 7-1

List of Appendices A Executive Summary for the Relative Risk Site Evaluation Concept B Relative Risk Ranking Worksheets C Schedules


091708/P v

Acronyms AMRAD Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile Development

AOC Area of Concern

APD Aquifer Protection District

ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement

BNA Base neutral acid extractable organic compound7s

BTEX Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CHF Contaminant Hazard Factor

COC Constituent of Concern

DERA Defense Environmental Restoration Account

DNAPL Dense, non-aqueous phase liquid

DoD Department of Defense

ECP Environmental Condition of Property

EE/CA Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis

ERA Ecological Risk Assessment

ESD Explanation of Significant Differences

EVO Emulsified vegetable oil

FCOR Final Closeout Report

FFA Federal Facility Agreement

FS Feasibility Study

FTF Flight Test Facility

GUVD Groundwater Use and Value Determination

HA Health Advisory


091708/P vi

HASP Health and Safety Plan

HHRA Human Health Risk Assessment

IAS Initial Assessment Study

IR Installation Restoration

IRA Interim Remedial Action

IRACR Interim Remedial Action Completion Report

ISCO In-situ Chemical Oxidation

KGS KOMAN Government Solutions, LLC

LTM Long-Term Monitoring

LUC Land Use Control

LUC RD Land Use Control Remedial Design

MADEQE Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering

MassDEP Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

MassPort Massachusetts Port Authority

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level

MCP Massachusetts Contingency Plan

MNA Monitored Natural Attenuation

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MPF Migration Pathway Factor

NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering Command

Navy U.S. Department of the Navy

NEESA Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity

NFA No Further Action

NIRAP Naval Industrial Research Aircraft Plant

NWIRP Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant


091708/P vii

OPS Operating Properly and Successfully

PA/SI Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation

PCB Polychlorinated biphenyls

PCOR Preliminary Closeout Report

PDI Pre-design Investigation

PFAS Per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances

PFOA Perfluorooctanoic Acid

PFOS Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid

PP Priority Pollutants

PRAP Proposed Remedial Action Plan (Proposed Plan)

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan

RA Remedial Action

RC Response Complete

RD Remedial Design

RF Receptor Factor

RI Remedial Investigation

RIP Remedies in Place

ROD Record of Decision

SAP Sampling and Analysis Plan

SFTA Southern Flight Test Area

SMP Site Management Plan

SSA Site Screening Area

SSP Site Screening Process

STM Short-Term Measure

SVOC Semi-Volatile Organic Compound


091708/P viii

TAL Target Analyte List

TCE Trichloroethene

TCL Target Compound List

Tetra Tech Tetra Tech, Inc.

TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

UST Underground Storage Tank

µg/kg Micrograms Per Kilogram

µg/L Micrograms Per Liter

VOC Volatile Organic Compound

Fiscal Year 2018 Site Management Plan Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant — Bedford, Massachusetts CTO WE20 Introduction

091708/P 1-1

1.0 Introduction

This Site Management Plan (SMP) for the Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Bedford, a National Priorities List site in Bedford, Massachusetts, was prepared for the U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy) by Tetra Tech under the Comprehensive Long-Term Environmental Action Navy Contract, Contract Number N62470-16-D-9008, Contract Task Order WE20. The SMP serves as a management tool for planning, reviewing, and setting priorities for environmental investigative and remedial response activities to be conducted at NWIRP Bedford under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), and in accordance with the Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) between the Navy and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) that became effective 2 February 2000 (USEPA, 2000). The SMP serves as the schedule for implementation of the Navy’s environmental investigation and remediation program (i.e., the Installation Restoration [IR] Program) at NWIRP Bedford. The SMP is updated annually in accordance with the FFA to revise priorities and schedules of activities, as additional information becomes available.

This SMP presents the rationale for the sequence of future investigation and remediation activities, and the estimated schedule for completion of these activities. The use of an SMP allows for annual adjustment in scheduled activities for reasons such as federal budgetary constraints, changes in scope of the investigation/remediation activities, or other unanticipated events.

This SMP as it is updated each year becomes Appendix D in the FFA. The FFA establishes the roles and responsibilities of the Navy and the USEPA, and serves as an Interagency Agreement for the completion of all necessary investigation and response actions at NWIRP Bedford. The SMP provides the schedule for completion of those investigation and response actions in accordance with the FFA.

1.1 NWIRP Bedford Background

The NWIRP Bedford property consists of multiple structures on 45.65 acres of land. The property has approximately 1,380 feet of frontage along the southern side of Hartwell Road, and approximately 780 feet of frontage along the northern side of Hartwell Road. Where applicable, the terms “North Activity” and “South Activity” shall refer to the areas to the north and to the south of Hartwell Road, respectively, and hereafter the property shall be referred to as either “NWIRP Bedford” or “the Activity”.


091708/P 1-2

1.1.1 Activity Description

NWIRP Bedford is located in eastern Massachusetts in the Town of Bedford, in Middlesex County, Massachusetts (Figure 1-1). The Activity, which is in the southwest portion of Bedford, is approximately 14 miles northwest of downtown Boston. It is bounded by the Lawrence G. Hanscom Field (Hanscom Field) and Hanscom Air Force Base to the south; Instrumentation Laboratory and Edge Sports Center, wetlands, and residences to the west; by woods and wetlands to the north; and by woods, residences, and wetlands to the east.

NWIRP Bedford’s mission was to design, fabricate, and test prototype equipment for missile guidance and control systems. NWIRP Bedford is divided into northern and southern sections that are separated by Hartwell Road (Figure 1-2), which provides the only paved ground access to the Activity, aside from the Hanscom Field taxiways. The northern section (North Activity) is located on Hartwells Hill, and consists of the Components Laboratory and its auxiliary buildings, the Compact Test Range (formerly the Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile Development [AMRAD] Building), the Facilities Storage Building, the Antenna Range Facility, a former incinerator, and the Government Building. The auxiliary buildings associated with the Components Laboratory are the Air Conditioning Room (Cooling Tower), the Incinerator Building, and various storage buildings. The areas in between the buildings are mostly paved for parking, driveways, and walkways. Hartwells Hill drops off steeply to the north and east, and more gradually to the south and west.

The southern section (South Activity), located adjacent to Hanscom Field immediately south of Hartwells Hill, consists of the Flight Test Facility (FTF), the Deluge Pump Station, a parking lot, a small storage building, and a concrete apron surrounding three quarters of the FTF with access to the taxiways and runways of Hanscom Field. The area is almost completely paved, except for the area near the Deluge Pump Station and the vacant area that the Old Hangar and associated buildings once occupied to the east of the FTF.

At this time, it is expected that the South Activity property will be transferred to the Massachusetts Port Authority (MassPort) for continued aviation-related industrial operations at Hanscom Field.


091708/P 1-3

f1"'11)$cniele f0 2013~ Cl'k ~ . l-<"°"41. Q:JeCl"Ol'lgle --11'1 COnconS.

,,,..-r,,--,:-=-r::-::->'c::-::-...,..,... - " -

Legend

C,1nstaDation Boundary

SITE AREA MAP SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN

NWIRP BEDFORD

BEDFORD. MASSACHUSETTS

- -- - -----"" ....

'''''"' .... 06l01l17


091708/P 1-4

Legend

CJ Installation Boundary D Existing 0uaa1n9 D Demolished euidrn9

FACIUTY PlAN SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN

NWIRP BEDFORD

BEDFORD. MASSACHUSETTS

N

i

,., 0 - - ,., "" - - -----

OCCl\lO I Y J.OONNET

.... '''''"' .... O&I07117


091708/P 1-5

1.1.2 Activity History

NWIRP Bedford was created in October of 1952 when construction of the Naval Industrial Reserve Aircraft Plant (NIRAP) began. Its mission was to provide the Raytheon Manufacturing Company of Waltham, Massachusetts, with facilities for research and development of radar, missile guidance systems, and related equipment. By the mid-1950s, when the Components Laboratory was added and most of the construction was complete, NIRAP encompassed approximately 98,000 square feet of space with an additional 53,000 square feet comprised of guard houses and test shelters. The Old Hangar, formerly operated by Transonics, was in existence from 1941/42 until it was demolished in 1995. The Plating Laboratory, Hawk, Lark, and Van Duesen buildings were constructed in 1952, and the FTF was constructed in 1959. Subsequently, the Navy built the Facilities Storage and Government Buildings near the Northern Activity boundary, and the Antenna Range and Transportation Buildings between them. Finally, the Navy built the air conditioning and incineration facilities, and the Compact Test Range.

1.1.3 Environmental History

The Navy initiated its IR Program at NWIRP Bedford in 1985 by conducting a Preliminary Assessment (PA), formerly known as the Initial Assessment Study (IAS), in April 1986 (Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity [NEESA], 1988). After a review of records and available data at the completion of the PA, a Remedial Investigation (RI) was recommended for two sites (see Sites 1 and 2 below). The Navy initiated the RI and Feasibility Study (FS) Phase in 1988. The results are reported in the Technical Memorandum, Remedial Investigation Findings and Supplemental Investigation Reports (Dames & Moore, 1990a, 1992, and 1990b). The Phase II Remedial Investigation Work Plan was completed in May 1992 (Brown & Root Environmental, 1992), and site characterization activities were conducted between October 1992 and August 1993. The Phase II program identified three more sites (see below). The Final Remedial Investigation Phase II Report (hereinafter referred to as the RI Phase II), was completed in September 2000 (Tetra Tech, 2000).

A Short-Term Measure (STM) Investigation later referred to as an Immediate Response Action and then as an Interim Remedial Action [IRA]) was conducted concurrently with the RI Phase II Investigation under the provisions of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection's (MassDEP’s) Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP). The Short-Term Measure Report was completed in April 1993 (Halliburton NUS, 1993), and following completion of the design, the Groundwater Treatment Facility was constructed by the western property line for plume migration control. The Groundwater Treatment


091708/P 1-6

Facility has been operating since February 1997 to capture and treat impacted groundwater associated with Site 3.

The IR Program Sites identified at NWIRP Bedford are as follows:

• Site 1 — Old Incinerator Ash Disposal Area • Site 2 — Components Laboratory Fuel Tank • Site 3 — Chlorinated Solvent Groundwater Plume1 • Site 4 — Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX) Plume

NWIRP Bedford was placed on the National Priorities List on 31 May 1994.

The Draft Remedial Investigation Phase II Report was submitted in January 1997 for regulatory review. Based on comments received from the regulatory agencies and subsequent discussions, the Navy conducted supplemental investigations at Site 3, Site 4, and the Southern Flight Test Area (SFTA), with USEPA approval. These efforts culminated in the completion of the RI, as documented in the revised RI Phase II Report, submitted in September 2000 (Tetra Tech, 2000).

Records of Decision (RODs) selecting no further action (NFA) for Sites 1 and 2 were signed in September 2000 (Navy, 2000c and 2000d).

The Site 3 ROD was signed in September 2010 and presented the selected remedy of in-situ enhanced bioremediation for the source area, continued operation of the IRA system for plume migration control, monitored natural attenuation (MNA), land use controls (LUCs), and 5-year reviews (Navy, 2010b). The Site 3 Remedial Design (RD) was completed in January 2012 (Tetra Tech, 2012), and the Remedial Action (RA) Work Plan was completed in April 2012 (AGVIQ/CH2M HILL, 2012). The Navy began construction of the Site 3 remedy in summer 2012. Full-scale operations for the Site 3 RA commenced in November 2012. The Construction Completion Report was completed in February 2014 (AGVIQ/CH2M HILL, 2014).

The Site 4 ROD was signed in September 2009. The selected remedy for Site 4 included additional source area excavation (based on the results of a pre-design investigation [PDI]), MNA for groundwater, LUCs, and 5-year reviews (Navy, 2009b). A draft final RD was prepared in August 2010 (Tetra Tech, 2010b); however, based on the results of the PDI conducted in March 2010, it was determined that excavation of the Site 4 source area was not warranted at the time. Therefore, the Navy has been

1 Site 3 is also called the “Northwest Groundwater Plume” in the FFA for NWIRP Bedford. The “Southern Plume” associated with the Southern Flight Test Area was incorporated into the remedy for Site 3 in 2016.


091708/P 1-7

conducting the MNA remedy at Site 4, and installed additional monitoring wells in September 2012 to verify that the BTEX groundwater plume is reaching cleanup goals. The Construction Completion Report was finalized in February 2014 (AGVIQ/CH2M HILL, 2014).

The Navy has been conducting a semi-annual groundwater monitoring program at the SFTA since 2002. In summer 2008, the Navy and Air Force signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding the residual contamination in bedrock groundwater at the SFTA (Navy/Air Force, 2008). The Navy completed an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) in March 2014 for the Site 3 ROD (Navy, 2014), which incorporates the SFTA property into the MNA program, and LUCs established with the Site 3 RA. The USEPA issued a Preliminary Closeout Report (PCOR) in March 2015 (USEPA, 2015). The Navy issued an Operating Properly and Successfully (OPS) Demonstration and Interim Remedial Action Completion Report (IRACR) for the Southern Flight Test Area (Tetra Tech, 2015). The Navy is currently working to transfer the SFTA property and conducted supplemental sampling events in 2013, 2014, and 2015 to provide additional information needed to support an environmental decision document for the property.

The Navy is continuing its groundwater monitoring program at Site 3 (including the SFTA) and Site 4. The first of the CERCLA 5-year reviews for NWIRP Bedford was completed in September 2014 (Resolution Consultants, 2014a).

1.2 SMP Sites

The following sites are addressed in this SMP. These sites were evaluated in the RI Phase II Report, are designated in the FFA (USEPA, 2000), and are the formal site designations that have been established for NWIRP Bedford. These designations will be used throughout this SMP and subsequent activities.

• Site 1 Old Incinerator Ash Disposal Area • Site 2 Components Laboratory Fuel Tank • Site 3 Chlorinated Solvent Groundwater Plumes (including the SFTA) • Site 4 BTEX Plume

The SFTA was identified and investigated during the RI, in coordination with Site 3. However, findings of the RI Phase II Report (Tetra Tech, 2000) did not identify onsite sources for chlorinated solvents present in groundwater at the SFTA, and suggested that the contamination may have resulted from offsite sources associated with the neighboring Hanscom Air Base. The Air Force operates a groundwater extraction system on Hanscom Field near the SFTA. Groundwater modeling performed by the Air


091708/P 1-8

Force shows a portion of the SFTA to be within the capture zone of the extraction system, which influences the migration of contaminated groundwater at the SFTA. Because the source of contamination is not from NWIRP Bedford operations, and the Air Force system is effectively controlling its migration, the SFTA was not listed as an Area of Concern (AOC) in the FFA. The status of the SFTA is discussed in Section 9.21 of the FFA. The SFTA is included in this SMP and associated schedules (see Section 5.0). A MOU was signed by the Navy and Air Force in summer 2008 regarding the SFTA (Navy/Air Force, 2008). The available groundwater monitoring data indicate that the residual contamination in SFTA groundwater is attenuating away at a rate such that cleanup goals will be met within an acceptable timeframe. The Navy prepared an ESD for the Site 3 ROD (Navy, 2014), which incorporated the groundwater remedy for the SFTA into the broader Site 3 RA.

1.3 Report Organization

The SMP is organized as follows:

• Section 1.0 consists of this introduction • Section 2.0 describes the history and status of each site at NWIRP Bedford • Section 3.0 provides a description of the CERCLA remedial process • Section 4.0 provides a description of the ranking procedure and a summary of

ranking results • Section 5.0 presents the sequence of activities and target dates for primary and

secondary documents, along with a discussion of their development • Section 6.0 provides the names and responsibilities of cleanup team members • Section 7.0 provides a listing of site-specific documents • Section 8.0 provides references for in-text citations

The Appendices are as follows:

• Appendix A presents the Executive Summary for the Relative Risk Site Evaluation Concept

• Appendix B presents the Relative Risk Ranking Worksheets • Appendix C presents the Summary and Detailed Schedules

Fiscal Year 2018 Site Management Plan Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant — Bedford, Massachusetts CTO WE20 Site Description and Groupings

091708/P 2-1

2.0 Site Description and Groupings

This section presents a brief history and the current status of each site addressed within this SMP for NWIRP Bedford. A brief description of each site, the remedial activities conducted or ongoing at the site, as well as the nature and extent of contamination, potential migration pathways, toxicity, and persistence of contaminants, and potential for adverse impact to the environment are presented in summary of findings Tables 2-1, 2-3, 2-3, and 2-4 at the end of each site description. Figure 2-1 presents the location of the sites.

2.1 Site Descriptions

This section provides summaries of the environmental investigations at Sites 1 through 4.

2.1.1 Site 1 — Old Incinerator Ash Disposal Area

Site 1 was identified during the IAS (NEESA, 1988). Site 1, the Old Incinerator Ash Disposal Area, was located at the north edge of the Activity near the Facility Storage Building. It was estimated that about three tons of classified documents and small quantities of waste paint were incinerated each year at this location. The potential constituents of concern (COCs) at this site were metals in soil and groundwater. The incineration of paint and film produced approximately 2 pounds of silver, 320 pounds of zinc, 570 pounds of lead, and 190 pounds of chromium over the 19 years of incineration at this site. The IAS concluded that Site 1 did not pose a threat to human health and the environment; however, further study of potential contaminant migration was recommended.

The Phase I RI (Dames & Moore, 1990a and 1992) and Supplemental Investigation (Dames & Moore, 1990b) initially focused on Sites 1 and 2. Metals were found at Site 1 at levels that would not pose a health risk.

During the Phase II RI, soil samples were collected and analyzed from soil borings to further characterize ash deposits at Site 1. Surface water and sediment samples were collected to evaluate whether or not outfalls and groundwater seeps represent a contaminant migration pathway. It was concluded that metals were not a problem in groundwater or sediment. Slightly elevated levels of lead and zinc in soil samples could potentially be associated with ash disposal. Concentrations of cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc in surface water exceeded Ambient Water Quality Standards. The RI indicated that Site 1 had been adequately characterized.


091708/P 2-2

'

Legend

D soe 1 D soe2 o soe3 D s.e•

SFTA

.., 0 - -0 Sotrthem R;ghtTestArea (SFTA)

c::JinstaUation Boundary .., "" - - ------

• '"" ..... ...

SITE LOCATION MAP __ .,, ~,.

SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN KMOORE '''''"' NWIRP BEDFORD OCClll!OIY ~ .. ~ BEDFORD.MASSACHUSETTS

J.OOMNET 06'117111

,10U111 w r,e11t11 NAIIRIC ,.,


091708/P 2-3

The risk assessment conducted as a part of the RI Phase II Report (Tetra Tech, 2000) identified no risks in excess of USEPA guidelines related to Site 1. The RI Phase II Report recommended that an HHRA based on residential site use assumptions be performed. An HHRA based on residential site use assumptions was conducted and no unacceptable risks were identified. USEPA and the Navy agreed that NFA was required for Site 1. The Navy issued a Proposed Remedial Action Plan (PRAP) for public comment in July 2000 (Navy, 2000a). No public comments were received. The Navy and USEPA signed a NFA ROD for Site 1 in September 2000 (Navy, 2000c). A summary of findings for Site 1 is included as Table 2-1 is presented below.

Table 2-1: Summary of Findings Site 1 — Old Incinerator Ash Disposal Area

Objective Determine the nature and extent of ash deposits and soil and groundwater contamination associated with ash deposits

Source of Contamination

Incineration of documents, paint, and film wastes over the 19 years of incineration at this Site

Analytical Parameters

Phase I1: Soil: PP total metals, PP BNA Groundwater: PP total metals, PP VOC Phase II2: Soil & Groundwater: TCL organics (VOC, SVOC, pesticides/PCBs), TAL metals, and cyanide Sediment & Surface Water: TCL organics (VOC, SVOC), TAL metals

Nature and Extent of Contamination

Soil: SVOC detected in subsurface soil up to maximum concentration of 6,600 µg/kg (phenanthrene). Metals in surface soils detected at maximum concentrations exceeding background levels (lead & zinc). Surface Water: Metals Detected Above Ambient Water Quality Standards (cadmium, copper, lead, & zinc) Groundwater and storm water sediments do not show impact from contamination associated with Site 1

Remedial Action “No Action” ROD signed in September 2000

Notes: 1 Includes Phase I Remedial Investigation (Dames & Moore, 1990a & 1992) and Supplemental Investigation

(Dames & Moore, 1990b). 2 Remedial Investigation Phase II (Tetra Tech, 2000) BNA = Base neutral acid extractable organic compounds PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyls PP = Priority Pollutants ROD = Record of Decision SVOC = Semi-volatile organic compounds VOC = Volatile organic compounds TAL = Target Analyte List TCL = Target Compound List µg/kg = Micrograms per kilogram


091708/P 2-4

2.1.2 Site 2 — Components Laboratory Fuel Tank

Site 2, the former Components Laboratory Fuel Tank located at the northeast corner of the Components Laboratory was identified during the IAS (NEESA, 1988). This underground storage tank (UST), a 20,000-gallon, No. 6 fuel oil tank, supplied fuel for boilers from 1953 to 1982. In 1982, the UST was drained, cleaned, and abandoned in-place due to a leak of approximately 200 gallons of fuel oil to the surrounding soil. An oil/water separator was installed during this time to collect oil and water, which had percolated through the soil as a result of the release. In 1989 the UST and approximately 50 to 75 cubic yards of soil were removed under provisions of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (MADEQE) (now the MassDEP) Chapter 21E requirements. The potential COCs at this site were total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) in soil, and TPH and metals in surface water. The IAS concluded that Site 2 did not pose a threat to human health and the environment; however, further study of potential contaminant migration in groundwater was recommended.

During the Phase I RI (Dames & Moore, 1990a; 1992), and Supplemental Investigation (Dames & Moore, 1990b) TPH was found primarily in the soil at Site 2, with only low concentrations in the groundwater, indicating that limited leaching from soil to groundwater had occurred.

During the Phase II RI, the Navy found elevated concentrations of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), lead, nickel, and zinc in a sediment sample located east of the Vitro Tower and north of the Components Building. These chemicals were most likely the result of the former leaking UST. The RI Phase II report (Tetra Tech, 2000) indicated that Site 2 had been adequately characterized.

The risk assessment conducted as part of the RI Phase II Report (Tetra Tech, 2000) identified no risks in excess of USEPA guidelines related to Site 2. Similar to Site 1, it was recommended that a HHRA using residential site use assumptions be performed.

An HHRA based on residential site use was performed, and no unacceptable risks were identified. The Navy and USEPA agreed that NFA was required for Site 2. In May 2000, the Navy issued a PRAP for public comment (Navy, 2000b). No public comments were received. The Navy and USEPA signed a NFA ROD for the site in September 2000 (Navy, 2000d). A summary of findings for Site 2 is included as Table 2-2.


091708/P 2-5

Table 2-2: Summary of Findings Site 2 — Components Laboratory Fuel Tank

Objective Determine the nature and extent of soil and groundwater contamination associated with former Components Laboratory fuel tank. Determine if release from former tank has migrated to sediment and surface water.

Source of Contamination Leak of approximately 200 gallons of fuel oil to the surrounding soil from UST, prior to 1982.


Phase I1: Soil: PP total metals, PP BNA Groundwater: PP total metals, PP VOC, TPH (shallow only) Surface Water (storm water outfalls): PP total metals, PP VOC, TPH Phase II2: Soil Vapor: VOC Soil & Groundwater: TCL organics (VOC, SVOC, pesticides/PCBs), TAL metals and cyanide Sediment & Surface Water: TCL organics (VOC, SVOC), TAL metals


Sediment (at storm water sewer outfall): SVOC detected at maximum concentration of 28,000 µg/kg (fluoranthene). VOC detected at maximum concentration of 58J µg/kg (acetone). Lead, nickel, and zinc exceed Effects Range Median. Groundwater does not show impact from contamination associated with former Components Laboratory Fuel Tank.

Remedial Action “No Further Action” ROD signed in September 2000. Notes: 1 Includes Phase I Remedial Investigation (Dames & Moore, 1990a; 1992) and Supplemental Investigation

(Dames & Moore, 1990b) 2 Remedial Investigation Phase II (Tetra Tech, 2000) BNA = Base neutral acid extractable organic compounds TAL = Target Analyte List PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyls TCL = Target Compound List PP = Priority Pollutants TPH = Total petroleum hydrocarbons ROD = Record of Decision µg/kg = Micrograms per kilogram SVOC = Semi-volatile organic compounds VOC = Volatile organic compounds

2.1.3 Site 3 — Chlorinated Solvent Groundwater Plumes

2.1.3.1 Northern Plume

The Navy’s Phase I RI (Dames & Moore, 1990a and 1992) reported the presence of chlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in groundwater at the northern portion of NWIRP Bedford near the Facility Storage Building and the Components Laboratory. The area where the chlorinated VOCs were detected was designated as Site 3 during the planning stages for the Phase II RI. Since the Phase II RI, Site 3 has been defined as consisting of a subsurface source area, which at the time was believed to contain dense, non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) in saturated subsurface soil, and an associated dissolved-phase plume of chlorinated VOCs in groundwater. The well-delineated, dissolved-phase plume begins at the source area near the Components Laboratory loading docks, and primarily migrates to the northwest into an off property wetland area.


091708/P 2-6

There has been one documented release of 1,1,1-trichloroethane in the loading dock area, but there have been no other documented releases identified to explain the source of the other chlorinated VOCs in the subsurface. Potential sources of releases, which contributed to the Site 3 plume include: the Components Laboratory, the Facility Storage Building print shop, a storm drain connected to the Facility Storage Building, the Antenna Range, the Transportation Building, the AMRAD building, the hazardous waste storage area, and the Old Incinerator. Trichloroethene (TCE) and 1,1,1-trichloroethane were both reportedly used in the Components Laboratory, and could have been released to the ground in this area. Waste liquids, including chlorinated solvents, from the Facility Storage Building print shop could have been disposed directly on the ground or to an upgradient septic system and then released to the groundwater.

The storm drain system could have provided a route of migration for chlorinated solvents from any of the buildings connected to this drainage system. Solvents could have been discharged directly to the ground at the Old Incinerator. Solvents also could have been released from the Components Laboratory through a drainage tile field located beneath the northeast corner of the building; the purpose of this drainage tile field is unknown. Floor drains and, prior to 1980, the sink drains in the AMRAD building, were connected to a storm drain that runs beneath this building. Solvents used during painting could have been discharged to these lines and leaked into the groundwater or spilled directly onto the ground. The hazardous waste storage area is located 100 feet southeast of the AMRAD Building. This site formerly was the storage area for new solvents and was the location of a 250-gallon diesel spill.

During the Phase I RI and Supplemental Investigation, chlorinated VOCs were detected in several wells at the northern end of NWIRP Bedford. A risk evaluation, which assumed “reasonable maximum exposure” of groundwater to human receptors at the northern end of the site, identified a potential risk that exceeded USEPA’s acceptable risk range. During the Phase II RI, the Navy provided a more detailed delineation of chlorinated VOC concentrations in groundwater. The investigation results were used in a fate and transport modeling effort to predict future offsite concentrations, in support of a baseline HHRA.

A second investigation performed concurrently with the Phase II investigation was called the STM, and was later renamed the IRA. Both these terms were derived from the Massachusetts General Law Chapter 21E and the MCP. When the field studies completed in 1989 and 1990 indicated that chlorinated VOCs may be migrating northward from Hartwells Hill toward Elm Brook, the Navy took action to contain the migration of these VOCs. The IRA was initiated with a field investigation to collect the necessary data to evaluate alternative technologies and to design the remediation


091708/P 2-7

system. The final design consisted of a row of 23 groundwater extraction wells located at the base of Hartwells Hill. The extraction wells were intended to prevent contaminated groundwater from Site 3 from migrating north toward Elm Brook. The extraction wells were designed to pump water to a treatment system that would pre-treat the water to remove naturally-occurring metals, and then treat the water using granular activated carbon to remove chlorinated VOCs. The Navy has been operating the groundwater extraction and treatment system since early 1997.

The baseline HHRA and ecological risk assessment (ERA) in the RI Phase II Report (Tetra Tech, 2000) identified no risks in excess of USEPA guidelines related to Site 3. Subsequent to conducting the HHRA and ERA, the town of Bedford voted to designate groundwater within its limits as an Aquifer Protection District (APD). An APD is an area designated by a municipality specifically for the protection of groundwater quality. Under the MCP, an area designated as an APD is considered a potential drinking water source area. Also, subsequent to the Navy’s completion of the HHRA and ERA, and in accordance with USEPA Region 1’s Groundwater Use and Value Determination (GUVD) Guidance and a March 1998 Memorandum of Agreement between USEPA and MassDEP regarding the implementation of that guidance, MassDEP completed a GUVD for the NWIRP Bedford area. Through this process, MassDEP determined that the aquifer underlying NWIRP Bedford is of “high use and value”, which is the most protective designation in the GUVD guidance. This determination was based, in part, on the Town of Bedford’s designation of this area as an APD.

To account for the change in aquifer classification that occurred since completion of the HHRA and ERA in 1996, the Navy conducted an additional evaluation of potential risks that could be posed by exposure to groundwater underlying Site 3. This additional risk evaluation (referred to as the risk assessment addendum), was presented in an Appendix to the Site 3 FS (Tetra Tech/ENSR, 2001c) and calculated that human health risks would exceed acceptable risk levels if onsite groundwater were to be used as a drinking water supply. A summary of findings for Site 3 is included in Table 2-3, presented at the end of this section.

A Site 3 FS was initially prepared in 2001 (Tetra Tech/ENSR, 2001a). In 2003, the Navy performed a pilot study to evaluate the potential effectiveness, implementability, and costs of thermal treatment for reducing VOC concentrations in groundwater in the source area. An evaluation of the pilot study was presented in the Final Closeout Report (FCOR) for Site 3 Thermal Treatment Pilot Test (Tetra Tech, 2008b). A draft final FS to develop whole-site remedial alternatives was submitted in December 2004 (Tetra Tech/ENSR, 2004). After regulatory agency comments were received on the draft final FS, the groundwater modeling was reevaluated and updated with a smaller source area. The modeling was completed in March 2007 and the draft final FS (Revision 1)


091708/P 2-8

was completed in September 2007 to incorporate the model results (Tetra Tech, 2007). Regulatory agency comments were received and a pre-final FS was issued in June 2008 (Tetra Tech, 2008a). Regulatory comments on the pre-final FS were received in March 2009.

The source area investigation was conducted in March 2010, and no DNAPL was found. The Navy finalized the FS in June 2010 (Tetra Tech, 2010a), issued a PRAP in July 2010 (Navy, 2010a), and signed the final ROD in September 2010 (Navy, 2010b). The selected remedy consists of source area treatment using in-situ enhanced bioremediation, continued operation of the IRA system, MNA, LUCs, and 5-year reviews. The Land Use Control Remedial Design (LUC RD) was completed in December 2011 (Tetra Tech, 2011a). The Navy completed the final RD in January 2012 (Tetra Tech, 2012) and the final RA Work Plan in April 2012 (AGVIQ/CH2M HILL, 2012) and developed a Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) to support the source area bioremediation monitoring program. The Navy commenced construction of the Site 3 RA in summer 2012 and full-scale operations for the Site 3 RA commenced in November 2012. The system operated until January 2015 when the full design volume of LactOil™ had been injected. The system was flushed with water only injection for approximately 1 week, after which it was drained and secured and the power was disconnected to the control panel. A final monitoring event for the bioremediation system’s performance and the overall groundwater plume was conducted in May 2015 (AGVIQ/CH2M HILL, 2015).

In January 2017, KOMAN Government Solutions LLC (KGS) was retained by the Navy to conduct the second round of emulsified vegetable oil (EVO) injections at Site 3. The second round of injections is using the existing injection well array consisting of 25 injection wells within four separate rows. During the spring of 2017, the injection wells were accessed and lightly developed to ensure connectivity with the subsurface formation. Repairs were made to the injection well array and the injection skid was made operational. A trial run of potable water was completed during the week ending 20 May. Injection of the diluted LactOil bioremediation substrate was initiated on 26 May 2017. The goal of the second round of EVO injections is to inject 6,500 pounds of the LactOil substrate. The second round should be completed by the end of December 2017.

In 2016, the Navy issued results of human health risk evaluations (HHRAs) for soil under residential use scenarios that were conducted for Site 3, Site 4, and the SFTA (Tetra Tech, 2016). The previous risk assessments had not evaluated the residential exposure scenario because the property was slated for continued industrial use. The planned use is still industrial, but the residential HHRAs were conducted to evaluate whether LUCs limiting residential exposure to soil were warranted based on additional


091708/P 2-9

data collection. The results indicated that site risks associated with soil were within USEPA’s target risk range, and that the Navy could choose to remove LUCs associated with soil for Site 3, Site 4, and the SFTA.

The Five Year Review identified emerging contaminants (1,4-dioxane at Site 3) that had not been previously analyzed by the Navy (Resolution Consultants, 2014a). A groundwater investigation conducted in December 2014 to determine presence/absence of these COCs at Site 3 determined that 1,4-dioxane was present at Site 3. 1,4-Dioxane was detected in groundwater samples and was also observed in both the influent and effluent streams of the groundwater extraction and treatment system. Additional groundwater sampling was performed in August 2015 to further delineate the extent of 1,4-dioxane at Site 3, and a report was issued in June 2016 (Resolution Consultants, 2016a). A work plan for a treatability study was developed in 2016 (Resolution Consultants, 2016c). The treatability study for 1,4-dioxane in the groundwater treatment system was conducted by the Navy (Resolution Consultants, 2017). As a result the Navy is currently implementing a modification to the GWETS to include treatment for 1,4-dioxane. The Navy is also planning to initiate further investigation of the extent of the 1,4-dioxane as well as plume treatment/containment options in 2017 and 2018.

The Navy completed an ESD to the Site 3 ROD in March 2014 incorporating the SFTA property into the overall Site 3 RA (Navy, 2014). The LUCs which are currently in place for Site 3 prohibit groundwater use and limit building occupancy. The LUC RD is currently being updated. A summary of the findings for Site 3 Northern Plume and update on the remedial action is shown in Table 2-3.

Table 2-3: Summary of Findings Site 3 — Chlorinated Solvent Groundwater Plume — Northern Plume

Objective of the Remedial Investigation

Locate source of Site 3 groundwater contamination. Determine the nature and extent of soil and groundwater contamination associated with Site 3. Determine if contamination associated with Site 3 has migrated to sediment and surface water.

Source of Contamination

One suspected source is a documented spill of 1,1,1-trichloroethane, purchased by Raytheon from Axton-Cross under the name Axothene. Approximately 55 gallons of Axothene was spilled from a ruptured drum to a storm drain on the north side of the Components Laboratory.


Phase I1: Soil: PP total metals, PP BNA Groundwater: PP total metals, PP VOC Phase II2: Soil Vapor: VOC Soil & Groundwater: TCL organics (VOC, SVOC, pesticides/PCBs), TAL metals and cyanide Sediment & Surface Water: TCL organics (VOC, SVOC), TAL metals


Groundwater: VOCs were detected at a maximum concentration of 240,000 µg/L (TCE). VOCs were detected in excess of MCLs in several locations. Surface Water (Elm Brook): VOCs were detected at maximum concentrations of 30 µg/L (1,2-dichloroethene) and 27 µg/L (TCE).


091708/P 2-10

Table 2-3: Summary of Findings Site 3 — Chlorinated Solvent Groundwater Plume — Northern Plume

Remedial Action

An IRA was operated from 1997 to 2010 for groundwater extraction and treatment (plume capture) and included a semi-annual groundwater monitoring program. A thermal treatment pilot study was conducted in 2003 in the source area. An additional source area investigation was conducted in March 2010 to aid in the remedy selection. The Navy issued a Proposed Plan in July 2010 and signed a ROD in September 2010 that specified in-situ bioremediation of the source area, continued operation of the groundwater extraction system, monitored natural attenuation of the remaining plume, LUCs, and 5-year reviews. The Remedial Design was completed in January 2012. The Remedial Action construction was completed in November 2012 and extraction and treatment began. The Final Construction Completion Report was completed in February 2014.

Remedial Action Update

An ESD was signed in March 2014 for the ROD in order to incorporate the SFTA into the Site 3 remedial action MNA and LUCs. The First 5-Year Review for NWIRP Bedford was completed in September 2014. The review concluded that the remedy remained protective and identified 1,4-dioxane, an emerging contaminant of concern, as potentially being present at the site. Studies conducted through 2017 have detected 1,4-dioxane at concentrations exceeding screening criteria at Site 3; The Navy conducted an evaluation of the GWETS and a treatability study through early 2017. As a result the Navy is currently implementing a modification to the GWETS to include treatment for 1,4-dioxane. The first round of EVO Injections at NWIRP, Site 3 was completed in January 2015 as the in-situ bioremediation component of the source area remedy. The second round of injection of a LactOil bioremediation substrate was initiated in late May 2017 and is ongoing. LTM has been conducted semi-annually and reports are listed in Table 7-1. The 2016 HHRA for soil did not identify unacceptable risk associated with exposure to Site 3 soil under a residential scenario.

Notes: 1 Site 3 was identified as a result of the evaluation of data from the Phase I RI at Site 1 (Dames & Moore, 1990a, 1990b, 1992) 2 Remedial Investigation Phase II (Tetra Tech, 2000) BNA = Base neutral acid extractable organic compounds PP = Priority Pollutants ESD = Explanation of Significant Differences ROD = Record of Decision EVO = Emulsified Vegetable Oil SFTA = Southern Flight Test Area GWETS = Groundwater Extraction and Treatment System SVOC = Semi-volatile organic compounds HHRA = Human Health Risk Assessment TAL = Target Analyte List IRA = Interim Remedial Action TCE = Trichloroethene LUC = Land use control TCL = Target Compound List LTM = Long Term Monitoring µg/L = Micrograms per liter MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level VOC = Volatile organic compounds PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyls

2.1.3.2 Southern Plume (SFTA)

The 1990 Phase I Supplemental Investigation also identified chlorinated VOCs in bedrock groundwater in the southern area of the Activity, near the Old Hangar. This area south of Hartwell Road is referred to as the SFTA. Groundwater elevation contours presented in the Phase II RI Report (Tetra Tech, 2000) indicate groundwater flow in the SFTA is predominantly to the south and southeast in both the surficial and bedrock aquifers. In 1993 and 1998, the highest concentrations of TCE and 1,2-dichloroethene in SFTA groundwater were found in the bedrock aquifer at monitoring well MW-24R, located south of the former Old Hangar. Since chlorinated VOCs were not detected upgradient of this well, the source of these compounds is not likely to the north. The low VOC concentrations detected in overburden monitoring wells indicated that the source is not above the bedrock in this area either.

The concentrations of TCE found in the SFTA monitoring wells have decreased substantially since 1993. The observed concentration decreases may be due to several


091708/P 2-11

factors, including natural biological degradation and the influence of the nearby pumping of groundwater on Hanscom Field property.

The Phase II RI Report (Tetra Tech, 2000) recommended continuation of discussions with the Air Force and coordination of future activities at the SFTA. In fall 2002, the Navy initiated a semi-annual groundwater monitoring program for chlorinated VOC concentrations in groundwater at the SFTA. The Navy also pursued an agreement with the Air Force to ensure that the groundwater contamination on the South Activity of NWIRP Bedford will be addressed. A MOU was signed by the Navy and Air Force in summer 2008 (Navy/Air Force, 2008). A summary of findings for the SFTA is included as Table 2-4 presented at the end of this section. The groundwater monitoring data indicate that the residual contamination in SFTA groundwater is attenuating away at a rate such that, cleanup goals will be met within an acceptable timeframe. The Navy completed the ESD for the Site 3 ROD in 2014 (Navy, 2014) incorporating the SFTA property into the MNA program and LUCs established with the Site 3 RA. The ESD is the decision document to establish the RA for the SFTA and will support the subsequent transfer of the SFTA property.

The 2014 Five Year Review identified a potential concern for groundwater at SFTA due to the possible presence of emerging contaminants known as perfluorinated compounds, now more commonly referred to as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). In 2009, USEPA established provisional health advisories (PHAs) for two PFAS, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS). In December 2014, the Navy conducted a supplemental groundwater sampling event for emerging contaminants that indicated PFOA and PFOS were not present in SFTA groundwater at concentrations exceeding USEPA’s 2009 PHA values in effect at the time (Resolution Consultants, 2016a). In agreement with the objectives and decision rules of the sampling event, the report concluded that no further action regarding PFAS at the SFTA was required based on the regulatory criteria in place at that time.

However, in May 2016, USEPA issued lifetime health advisories (LHAs) for PFOA (0.07 µg/L) and PFOS (0.07 µg/L) in drinking water, which are lower than the PHAs. Using a conservative approach, USEPA set the LHA for the sum of the concentrations of PFOA and PFOS at 0.07 µg/L. The LHAs were exceeded in the December 2014 sample results from one well, MW25R-1214, where PFOS was detected at 0.118 µg/L, and the combined concentrations of PFOA and PFOS (0.17) also exceeded the LHA. As a result, the Navy added analysis for select PFAS to the groundwater monitoring program for the SFTA. Once sufficient data have been collected, the Navy will evaluate whether additional remedial actions are warranted. In the meantime, the existing LUCs that prevent groundwater use are protective of human health and the environment.


091708/P 2-12

Groundwater sampling for 1,4-dioxane was completed at the SFTA in April and May 2015. The Groundwater Investigation for 1,4-Dioxane, Southern Flight Test Area (Resolution Consultants, 2016b) did not indicate 1,4-dioxane to be present in the groundwater samples collected at the site. In agreement with the objectives and decision rules presented in the SAP (Resolution Consultants, 2014b) and SAP Addendum (Resolution Consultants, 2015a), NFA regarding 1,4-dioxane is required at the SFTA.

In 2016, the Navy issued results of human health risk evaluations (HHRAs) for soil under residential use scenarios that were conducted for Site 3, Site 4, and the SFTA (Tetra Tech, 2016). The previous risk assessments had not evaluated the residential exposure scenario because the property was slated for continued industrial use. The planned use is still industrial, but the residential HHRAs were conducted to evaluate whether LUCs limiting residential exposure to soil were warranted based on additional data collection. The results indicated that site risks associated with soil were within USEPA’s target risk range, and that the Navy could choose to remove LUCs associated with soil for Site 3, Site 4, and the SFTA.

The Navy is currently working to transfer the SFTA property to MassPort and has conducted supplemental sampling events to provide the additional information needed to support an environmental decision document for the property. These documents include the PCOR and OPS/IRACR. The Navy is currently developing an Environmental Condition of Property (ECP) report and is working with MassPort, MassDEP, and USEPA to place a Notice of Activity and Use Limitation on the SFTA property. The LUC Remedial Design for Site 3 and the SFTA and the Long Term Monitoring (LTM) Plan are currently being updated to incorporate per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS). The SFTA activities including a RA update are shown in Table 2-4.


091708/P 2-13

Table 2-4: Summary of Findings Site 3 — Chlorinated Solvent Groundwater Plume — Southern Plum, SFTA

Objective Determine nature and extent of soil and groundwater contamination at SFTA. Determine source of groundwater contamination at SFTA.

Source of Contamination Unconfirmed


Phase I1: Groundwater: PP total metals, PP VOC, TPH (shallow only) Surface Water (storm water outfalls): PP total metals, PP VOC, TPH Phase II2: Soil Vapor: VOC Soil & Groundwater: TCL organics (VOC, SVOC, pesticides/PCBs), TAL metals, cyanide Sediment & Surface Water: TCL organics (VOC, SVOC), TAL metals


Soil: SVOC detected at maximum concentration to 1,800 µg/kg (di-n-butylphthalate). Groundwater (on Site, not on Air Force property): VOC detected in shallow groundwater at maximum concentration of 10 µg/L (TCE). VOC detected in bedrock groundwater at maximum concentration of 250 µg/L (TCE).

Recommended Remedial Alternative

The Navy and Air Force have signed a Memorandum of Understanding regarding monitoring of SFTA’s bedrock groundwater and the operation of the Air Force’s nearby groundwater treatment system. A semi-annual groundwater monitoring program is currently in place. Only one contaminant (TCE) remains above groundwater standards at the SFTA (maximum detection of 38 µg/L of TCE compared to a standard of 5 µg/L). TCE concentrations are continuing to decrease over time. The Navy is currently working to transfer the SFTA property and signed an ESD in March 2014 for the Site 3 ROD to include the planned remedy for the SFTA (monitored natural attenuation, LUCs, 5-year reviews) under the Site 3 Remedial Action.


The First 5-Year Review for NWIRP Bedford was completed in September 2014. The review concluded that the remedy remained protective and identified PFAS including PFOA and PFOS, emerging contaminants of concern, as potentially being present at the site. PFAS were identified in groundwater at the SFTA in 2014, but all detections were less than EPA preliminary health advisory levels and no further action was recommended. 1,4-dioxane was not detected in groundwater at the SFTA. In May 2016 EPA issued Health Advisory criteria for PFOA and PFOS. These criteria were exceeded in groundwater at one SFTA well. Semi-annual LTM has continued through spring 2017. The 2016 HHRA for soil did not identify unacceptable risk associated with exposure to Site 3 soil under a residential scenario.

Notes: 1 Supplemental Investigation (Dames & Moore July 1990) 2 Remedial Investigation Phase II (Tetra Tech September 2000) ESD = Explanation of Significant Differences SVOC = Semi-volatile organic compounds LUC = Land use control TAL = Target Analyte List PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyls TCE = Trichloroethane PFAS = per-and polyfluorinated alkyl substances TCL = Target Compound List PFOA = perfluorooctanoic acid TPH = Total petroleum hydrocarbons PFOS = perfluorooctane sulfonic acid µg/L = Micrograms per liter PP = Priority Pollutants VOC = Volatile organic compounds SFTA = Southern Flight Test Area

2.1.4 Site 4 — BTEX Plume

Site 4, the BTEX plume, was identified during the Phase II RI. Site 4 is associated with releases from the former Transportation Building and its UST. The Transportation Building operations included vehicle maintenance activities (e.g., repairs, oil changes, etc.) and equipment storage. Oil stains on the floor suggest that small amounts of waste petroleum products may have been released to the ground. A 7,600-gallon


091708/P 2-14

gasoline UST was in use adjacent to the Transportation Building from 1960 through 1984. In 1984, this UST failed a tightness test and the UST and associated piping were subsequently removed in December 1988 and January 1989, along with approximately 75 to 100 cubic yards of contaminated soil. These actions were documented in a 31 January 1989 letter, from Brian Balukonis of Raytheon to Elizabeth Callahan of MADEQE; the letter stated that further evaluation of this UST should take place under the IR program. Subsequent investigations identified a narrow BTEX plume in groundwater that has migrated to the north of the Activity, down the slope of Hartwells Hill to an off-property wetland area. The plume did not appear to reach Elm Brook.

The risk assessment conducted during the RI Phase II Report (Tetra Tech, 2000) identified no risks in excess of USEPA’s guidelines for the exposure pathways evaluated. The RI Phase II Report recommended a FS for Site 4. Subsequent to submitting a final FS in March 2001 (Tetra Tech/ENSR, 2001a), the Navy, completed an addendum to the baseline risk assessment presented in the RI Phase II report. This addendum was issued in October 2001 (Tetra Tech/ENSR, 2001c) and included an evaluation of risks if site groundwater were to be used as a drinking water supply onsite; the calculated risk exceeded USEPA guidance levels.

From November 2000 through early 2003, the Navy conducted a removal action (remedial measure) using in-situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) for the Site 4 source area. In April 2002, the Navy issued a PRAP (Navy, 2002) recommending ISCO for the source area, followed by MNA of the residual plume. Although the ISCO treatment reduced source area contaminant concentrations, the desired cleanup goal was not achieved throughout the treatment area and additional remedial measures were deemed appropriate. In 2003, the Navy conducted a second removal action involving in-situ thermal treatment of the Site 4 source area which appeared to be successful for reducing source area contaminant concentrations. Subsequently, the Navy conducted semi-annual groundwater monitoring and evaluated MNA at Site 4. A MNA assessment report was issued in September 2008 Tetra Tech, 2008c). The monitoring data at that time indicated that BTEX concentrations in source area groundwater had slightly rebounded since the 2 soil.

In June 2009, the Navy issued a new PRAP (superseding the 2002 PRAP) (Navy, 2009a) in which the Navy recommended additional source area excavation, followed by MNA of the residual groundwater plume, LUCs, and 5-year reviews. The PRAP was approved by the public and regulatory agencies and the final ROD was signed in September 2009 (Navy, 2009b). The Navy then commenced the draft RD and conducted a PDI in March 2010 to delineate the extent of BTEX in source area soil. Based on those results, it was determined that additional source area excavation was


091708/P 2-15

not warranted at that time. The draft final RD was finalized in August 2010 (Tetra Tech, 2010b) and final LUC RD was finalized in December 2011 (Tetra Tech, 2011b).

In 2016, the Navy issued results of human health risk evaluations (HHRAs) for soil under residential use scenarios that were conducted for Site 3, Site 4, and the SFTA (Tetra Tech, 2016). The previous risk assessments had not evaluated the residential exposure scenario because the property was slated for continued industrial use. The planned use is still industrial, but the residential HHRAs were conducted to evaluate whether LUCs limiting residential exposure to soil were warranted based on additional data collection. The results indicated that site risks associated with soil were within USEPA’s target risk range, and that the Navy could choose to remove LUCs associated with soil for Site 3, Site 4, and the SFTA.

Quarterly monitoring of the Site 4 groundwater plume began in 2012 and is continuing with the MNA portion of the RA. Data from the ongoing site sampling will be reviewed and evaluated in 2017 with respect to optimization of the sample program. The Navy anticipates that cleanup goals will be achieved within the next few years. A summary of findings for Site 4 is included as Table 2-5.

Table 2-5: Summary of Findings Site 4 — BTEX Plume

Objective Determine the source, nature, and extent of BTEX contamination.

Source of Contamination A release of BTEX resulting from former garage operations and a leaking gasoline UST (formerly located to the south of the Transportation Building, prior to 1984). The UST was removed in 1989.


Phase II1,2: Soil Vapor: VOC Soil: TCL organics (VOC, SVOC, pesticides/PCBs), TAL metals, cyanide, volatile petroleum hydrocarbons, TPH Groundwater: TCL VOC


Soil: BTEX compounds detected in soil vapor. BTEX detected in soil at maximum concentration of 35,000 µg/kg (xylenes). Groundwater: BTEX detected in groundwater at maximum concentration of 2,160,000 µg/L (ethylbenzene). BTEX concentrations in excess of MCLs in several locations.

Remedial Action

The Navy completed three source area removal actions: (1) removal of the UST and surrounding soil in 1989; (2) in-situ chemical oxidation from 2000 to 2003 and (3) in-situ thermal treatment (electrical resistance heating) in 2003. The Navy conducted MNA of the residual groundwater plume as part of a semi-annual groundwater monitoring program from 1997 to 2009. A ROD was signed in September 2009. The selected remedy includes (1) PDI of source area soil; (2) selective excavation of the source area based on the PDI results; (3) onsite treatment of the excavated soil using bioremediation (biopiles) or offsite disposal; (4) onsite treatment and discharge of any water from the excavation (if dewatering is required); (5) potential application of enhanced bioremediation in the excavated source area; (6) MNA of the groundwater plume; (7) institutional controls; and (8) five-year reviews.


091708/P 2-16

Table 2-5: Summary of Findings Site 4 — BTEX Plume

A draft Remedial Design for excavation was prepared; however, based on the March 2010 PDI results, it was determined that source area excavation is not required at this time. Currently, MNA is being conducted for the residual groundwater plume (maximum total BTEX concentration of 943 µg/L). Updated Sampling and Analysis Plans were prepared in November 2011 and March 2012. Additional monitoring wells were installed in September 2012. The Final Construction Completion Report was completed in February 2014.


The Final 5-year review was submitted in September 2014. The groundwater analytical data at Site 4 demonstrates a decreasing trend and groundwater is continuing to attenuate toward cleanup goals. LUCs prevent consumption of contaminated groundwater and restrict property use. The remedy is functioning as intended and progressing towards meeting remedial goals. Quarterly sampling has continued and reports are listed in Table 7-1. The 2016 soil HHRA demonstrated that there were no unacceptable risks associated with exposure to site soil under a residential scenario.

Notes: 1 Site 4 was identified as a result of the evaluation of the Phase II data. 2 Remedial Investigation Phase II (Tetra Tech, 2000) BTEX = Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes TAL = Target Analyte List MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level TCL = Target Compound List MNA = Monitored natural attenuation TPH = Total petroleum hydrocarbons PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyls µg/kg = Micrograms per kilogram PDI = Pre-design Investigation µg/L = Micrograms per liter ROD = Record of Decision UST = Underground Storage Tank SVOC = Semi-volatile organic compounds VOC = Volatile organic compounds

2.2 Site Groupings

It is not necessary to seek groupings for Sites 1 through 4. Sites 1 and 2 have already been closed with NFA RODs. The groundwater plumes associated with Sites 3 and 4, although partially comingled, have different COCs and do not warrant being combined. As noted, the 2016 ESD to the Site 3 ROD incorporated the SFTA into the MNA and LUC remedial action components of Site 3.

Fiscal Year 2018 Site Management Plan Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant — Bedford, Massachusetts CTO WE20 Regulatory Process Activities

091708/P 3-1

3.0 Regulatory Process Activities

Since 1985, investigation of the CERCLA hazardous waste sites has been conducted under the Navy IR Program which parallels the CERCLA regulatory process. Under the IR program, abandoned waste sites that potentially contain hazardous constituents undergo several phases of environmental investigation, which would ultimately determine the need for a remedy, and if necessary, the selection and implementation of the remedy for the site. The phases of investigation under CERCLA include the Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection (PA/SI), RI, FS, ROD, and RD/RA. At federal facilities where the responsible federal agency has entered into a FFA with the USEPA, the Site Screening Process (SSP) investigation is the initial study under CERCLA in response to a suspected hazardous substance release or threat of release. CERCLA also has provisions for removal actions that can be implemented if a site poses an immediate threat to the environment. Funding to pay for such investigation is allocated for Department of Defense (DoD) sites under the Defense Environmental Restoration Account (DERA).

3.1 Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation and Site Screening Process

The initial study conducted under CERCLA at a site in response to a real or suspected hazardous substance release is the PA/SI or collectively, the SSP. The PA/SI relies heavily on existing information and is limited in scope. If the PA/SI identifies sites or study areas as potentially posing a threat to human health or the environment, then a RI/FS is conducted.

At federal facilities where the responsible federal agency has entered into a FFA with the USEPA, the SSP investigation is the initial study under CERCLA in response to a suspected hazardous substance release or threat of release. The SSP is the mechanism for determining whether the sites with such suspected releases and threats of releases, called Site Screening Areas (SSAs), require further study through the RI/FS process (or as part of a CERCLA removal action) because they pose a threat or potential threat to human or ecological receptors. At NWIRP Bedford, the Navy did not identify any SSAs before the signing of the FFA. Any newly identified SSAs will proceed through the SSP in accordance with the FFA.

The SSP considers current CERCLA guidance to determine whether there have been releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants, to the environment from the SSAs. The SSP report provides the basis for whether an RI/FS should be performed or whether an SSA should be removed from further study. Those SSAs that


091708/P 3-2

require an RI/FS become Areas of Concern (AOCs). AOCs are areas where there is or has been a release or threat of release of CERCLA hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants, or where a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants has migrated or threatens to migrate prior to the completion of RA.

3.2 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study

The RI/FS is the next phase of the CERCLA remedial process and is required for all AOCs. The RI is intended to determine the nature and extent of contamination, potential migration pathways, toxicity and persistence of contaminants, and potential (risk) for adverse impacts to human health and the environment. The FS is intended to develop remedial action objectives, identify Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs), develop and screen remedial alternatives, analyze remedial alternatives, and compare the alternative(s) such that CERCLA criteria are best met (protection of human health and the environment; compliance with ARARs; reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment; short-term effectiveness; long-term effectiveness; implementability; cost; state acceptance; and community acceptance).

After completion of the RI/FS, a PRAP is issued for public comment. The PRAP identifies the Navy’s preferred alternative for site remediation. After public comments are received, this alternative may be approved or modified. Subsequently, a ROD will be issued that identifies the selected remedial alternative(s).

3.3 Removal Action

A removal action may be completed prior to, during, or after the RI/FS to reduce the threat to human health or the environment by removing released hazardous substances or reducing potential exposure pathways. Time-critical removal actions are taken when there is an imminent threat to human health or the environment. Non-time-critical removal actions may be delayed six months or more, based on the reduced threat to human health or the environment.

To enable the selection of the best remedial alternative for non-time-critical removal actions, an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA), or its equivalent, is prepared. Unlike the FS, the EE/CA focuses only on the material to be removed and does not use the full CERCLA criteria. An Action Memorandum is completed prior to a formal public comment period.

Subsequent to a removal action, the FS may conclude that NFA is required to reduce the threat to human health and the environment. In this case, a no-action ROD would be issued and the CERCLA remedial process would be concluded.


091708/P 3-3

3.4 Interim Remedial Actions

An IRA may be completed prior to or during the RI/FS to reduce the threat to human health or the environment by removing released hazardous substances or reducing potential exposure pathways. To facilitate selection of the best remedial alternative for an IRA, a Focused FS is prepared. An interim ROD is issued, and interim RD/RA activities are initiated. After implementation of the IRA, the FS may conclude that NFA is required to reduce the threat to human health and the environment. In this case, a no-action ROD would be issued and the CERCLA remedial process would be concluded.

3.5 Remedial Design/Remedial Action

The ROD establishes the scope and schedule for the development of the RD and RA. The RD typically proceeds in a stepped process of submittals (e.g., 30-, 60-, and 90-percent complete) and addresses detailed design issues not addressed during the FS. The RA is the implementation of the RD.

Fiscal Year 2018 Site Management Plan Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant — Bedford, Massachusetts CTO WE20 Site Ranking

091708/P 4-1

4.0 Site Ranking

This section provides a summary of the relative risk ranking procedure. Results of the risk ranking procedure are intended to assist in prioritizing site cleanups. A detailed description of this procedure can be found in the Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer, Revised Edition (DoD, 1996). A summary of the relative ranking results for each site at NWIRP Bedford is also provided in this section.

4.1 Requirements for Relative Site Evaluations

Relative risk site evaluations are required for all sites at active military installations, Base Realignment and Closure installations, and formerly used defense properties that have future funding requirements that are not classified as: (1) having all remedies in place (RIP); (2) response complete (RC); (3) lacking sufficient information; or (4) abandoned ordnance. Because the four sites at NWIRP Bedford do not fit any of these categories, relative risk evaluations were performed for each of them.

The following two paragraphs describe how the RIP and RC categories will apply as the NWIRP Bedford sites progress to remediation.

Relative risk site evaluations are not required for sites classified as having all RIPs even though they may be in RA operation or LTM. A RIP determination requires that RA construction is complete for a site.

Relative site risk evaluations are not required for sites with an RC designation. Sites classified as RC are those where a DoD Component deems that NFA is required, with the possible exception of LTM. An RC determination requires that one of the following apply: (1) there is no evidence that contaminants were released at the site; (2) no contaminants were detected at the site other than at background concentrations; (3) contaminants attributable to the site are below action levels used for risk screening; (4) the results of a baseline risk assessment demonstrate that cumulative risks posed by the site are below established thresholds; or (5) removal and/or RA operations at a site have been implemented, completed, and are the final action for the site.

4.2 Relative Risk Site Evaluation Framework

The DoD has developed a Relative Risk Site Evaluation framework as a means of categorizing sites in the DERA Program into High, Medium, and Low relative risk groups. The ranking of sites is not a substitute for a baseline HHRA nor is it a means of placing sites into a NFA category.


091708/P 4-2

The categorization of sites into relative risk groups is based on an evaluation of contaminants, pathways, and human and ecological receptors for groundwater, surface water and sediment, and surface soils. The air medium is not considered. Each of these environmental media is evaluated using three factors:

• The Contaminant Hazard Factor (CHF) • The Migration Pathway Factor (MPF) • The Receptor Factor (RF)

The CHF is a combined measure of contaminant concentrations in a given environmental medium. CHF ratings are either “significant”, “moderate”, or “minimal” for each media. A CHF rating is determined based on the ratio of the maximum concentration of a contaminant in each medium (groundwater, surface water and sediment, surface soil) to a risk-based concentration standard for that contaminant (Media Protection Standard or Preliminary Remediation Goal). For media containing more than one contaminant the ratios are added.

The MPF is a measure of the movement or potential movement of contamination away from the original source. MPF ratings are either “evident”, “potential”, or “confined” for each medium. A rating of “evident” means that analytical data or observable evidence indicates that contamination in the medium is present at and is moving towards, or has moved to a point of exposure. A rating of “potential” indicates that contamination has moved only slightly beyond the source, could move but is not moving appreciably, or information is not sufficient to make a determination of “evident” or “confined.” A rating of “confined” indicates low possibility for contamination to be present at or migrate from the source to a point of exposure.

The RF is an indication of the potential for human or ecological contact with site contaminants. RF ratings are either “identified”, “potential”, or “limited” for each media. A rating of “identified” indicates that receptors have been identified that have access to contaminated media. A rating of “potential” indicates potential for receptors to have access to contaminated media. A rating of “limited” indicates that there is little or no potential for receptors to have access to contaminated media.

The risk-based concentration standards used in the risk ranking procedure for each medium are included in Appendix B of the Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer (DoD 1996). The standards that are applicable to each medium are discussed on page 6 of the Primer. Assumptions for ratings are discussed on pages 24 through 30 of the Primer.

Sites lacking reliable concentration data will be designated as “not evaluated”. Actions on these sites may be deferred, or the sites may be programmed for additional data


091708/P 4-3

collection. In addition, removal action or another appropriate response action may be appropriate.

Upon determination of the CHF, MPF, and RF, a decision matrix is used to determine the category of relative risk for each medium. Relative risk categories are High, Medium, and Low. The highest rating resulting from the evaluation of the three media becomes the relative risk category of the site. A site’s rating may change based on new or additional information or as a result of remediation activities.

The results of the Relative Risk Site Evaluation are used, in conjunction with other risk management concerns, to assist in the sequencing of remedial work. Appendix A contains the Executive Summary for the Relative Risk Evaluation Concept.

4.3 Summary of Site Risk Ranking for nwirp Bedford

A summary of relative risk ranking results for the applicable NWIRP Bedford sites, based on historical data, is shown on Table 4-1. Complete relative risk ranking calculations are included as Appendix B. Contaminant concentrations have since decreased at the sites and although the relative risk rankings have not been recalculated, it is expected that the site risks have similarly decreased.

Table 4-1: Relative Risk Ranking Results

Site Name Rank 1 Old Incinerator Ash Disposal Area Low 2 Components Laboratory Fuel Tank Low 3 Chlorinated Solvent Groundwater Plume High 4 BTEX Plume High

Note: BTEX = Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes

Fiscal Year 2018 Site Management Plan Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant — Bedford, Massachusetts CTO WE20 Schedule

091708/P 5-1

5.0 Schedule

Detailed SMP schedules for Facility-wide activities, Site 3, the SFTA, Site 4, and the SFTA Property Transfer work are presented in Appendix C. There are no site-specific schedules for Sites 1 and 2, because they have been closed with NFA RODs.

The schedules were developed in accordance with the FFA based on the current status for each site at NWIRP Bedford, anticipated activities, and projected funding availability. The schedules will be updated prior to finalization of the SMP because several key documents are pending issuance during the summer of 2017 and Navy priorities are currently under discussion. The “deliverables” required during the remedial process are separated into two categories, primary and secondary. A description of each of these “deliverables” is provided below.

5.1 Primary Documents

Primary documents are developed by the Navy and initially submitted as a draft. The draft Primary Documents are subject to review by the USEPA and MassDEP.

Following timely receipt of comments on a draft Primary Document, the Navy responds to comments received and issues a draft final version of the Primary Document. Following a regulator concurrence period, the final Primary Document is prepared and issued. According to the FFA, Primary Documents include:

• SSP Work Plans • SSP Reports • RI/FS (including Baseline Risk Assessment) Work Plans, to include the following:

- Sampling and Analysis Plan - Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) - Health and Safety Plan (HASP)

• RI Reports (including Baseline Risk Assessment) • FS Reports • Proposed Plans (PRAPs) • Final RDs • RA Work Plans, including the following as appropriate for the RA selected:

- Schedules for RA - RA Sampling Plan - RA Construction Quality Assurance Plan


091708/P 5-2

- RA Environmental Monitoring Plan - Contingency Plan

• LTM Plans • Interim RA Reports • Operation and Maintenance Plans • PCOR • FCOR

The PCOR and FCOR are dependent on completion of physical construction of the RA for the last Operable Unit at the Site and meeting the performance standards specified in the ROD(s), respectively, as specified in Sections 9.19 and 9.20 A. of the FFA. Physical construction of the last Operable Unit (Site 3) was completed in 2012, and the source area treatment was underway in 2013. The SFTA investigation area was incorporated into the Site 3 RA through an ESD to the Site 3 ROD (Navy, 2014). A PCOR was completed in March 2015 (USEPA, 2015). The schedule for the FCOR will depend on the timeframe required to achieve final cleanup goals (performance standards) at all sites and cannot be precisely predicted at this time.

5.2 Secondary Documents

According to the FFA, Secondary Documents include those documents that are discrete portions of the Primary Documents and are typically input or feeder documents. Secondary Documents are issued by the Navy in draft, subject to review and comment by the USEPA and MassDEP. Although the Navy must respond to comments received, the draft Secondary Document may be finalized in the context of the corresponding draft final Primary Document. According to the FFA, Secondary Documents include:

• Community Relations Plan Updates • EE/CA Reports • RA Memoranda • Non-Time Critical RA Plans • Pilot/Treatability Study Reports • Well Closure Methods and Procedures • Preliminary/Conceptual RDs, or Equivalents • Pre-final RDs • Periodic Review Assessment Reports • Sampling and Data Results • Initial Screening of Alternatives


091708/P 5-3

5.3 Durations

According to the FFA, the review and comment periods for all draft Primary Documents, with the exception of draft PRAPs, Final RD documents, and RA Work Plans, are as follows:

• USEPA/State review of draft Primary Document and transmission of comments to Navy — 45 days

• Navy review of USEPA/State comments and transmission of response letter to USEPA/State — 45 days

• USEPA/State review of Navy response letter and transmission of comments to Navy — 30 days

• Navy revision and issuance of draft final Primary Document to USEPA/State — 30 days

The review and comment periods for draft PRAPs are specified in Section 9.11 of the FFA. The review and comment period for the Site 3 RD documents and RA Work Plans were proposed at the time of submittal of the draft ROD, as specified in Section 9.12 of the FFA. The Navy, USEPA, and MassDEP have discussed and agreed upon these schedules. Updated schedules are presented in Appendix C.

According to the FFA, Secondary Documents are subject to a 30-day review period, unless otherwise agreed to by the Parties. Within 30 days from receipt of comments on a Secondary Document, the Navy will submit to USEPA and MassDEP response to comments. Following the review period of the response to comments on the Secondary Document, either USEPA or the Navy may request a meeting to discuss outstanding technical issues.

The FFA provides a provision to extend a timetable, deadline, or schedule for good cause and with the agreement of the Parties.

The SMP is reviewed and revised as necessary each year. The review cycle is as follows:

• Submit a draft Amendment to the SMP no later than June 15 to propose deadlines to take effect in the next Fiscal Year

• 30 day USEPA/State review and comment period • 30 days to develop and submit a Draft Final Amendment to the SMP • 30 day USEPA/State review period

The final Amendment to the SMP is submitted within 21 days after the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) has received official notification of NAVFAC’s


091708/P 5-4

allocation based on the current year’s DERA appropriation. If it is determined that allocated funds are insufficient to complete all planned work, there will be a 30 day consultation period for the Navy and USEPA to re-scope or reschedule activities, or develop and implement cost-savings measures.

Fiscal Year 2018 Site Management Plan Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant — Bedford, Massachusetts CTO WE20 NWIRP Bedford Cleanup Team

091708/P 6-1

6.0 NWIRP Bedford Cleanup Team

The names, addresses, and responsibilities of the cleanup team members are as follows:

Remedial Project Managers Maritza Montegross NAVFAC MIDLANT 757-341-2013 [email protected] Matthew Audet (HBS) Office of Site Remediation & Restoration USEPA — New England 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 Mail Code OSRR07-3 Boston, MA 02109-3912 617-918-1449 [email protected]

Brian Roden MassDEP, Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup 1 Winter Street Boston, MA 02108 617-292-5920 [email protected] Support Members Commanding Officer Attn: Code SEA04I-Anthony Bankhead BLDG 201 Naval Sea Systems Command 1333 Isaac Hull Avenue Washington Navy Yard DC 20376-2101 202-781-4227 [email protected] Paul Corwell Dextera Corporation NAVSEA Technical Representative 210 State Route 956

Rocket Center, WV 26726 304-726-7933 Cell: 202-420-9516 [email protected] Robert Davis Tetra Tech 661 Andersen Drive, Foster Plaza 7 Pittsburgh, PA 15220-2700 412-921-7251 [email protected] Robert McCarthy Resolution Consultants 1233 Silas Deane Highway Wethersfield, CT 06109 860-665-1140 [email protected] Lisa M. Stone Senior Project Manager Sovereign Consulting Inc. 16 Chestnut Street, Suite 520 Foxborough, MA 02035 phone: 508-339-3200 fax: 508-339-3248 [email protected] John P. Fitzgerald, P.G. Project Manager KOMAN Government Solutions, LLC 160 East Main Street, Suite 2F Westborough, MA 01581 Phone (508) 366-7442 Cell (978) 257-0312 (508) 366-7445 Fax

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]










091708/P 6-2

Pamela Harting-Barrat Community Involvement Coordinator USEPA Region I 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 Mail Code OSRR07-3 Boston, MA 02109-3912 617-918-1318 [email protected] Captain C. Rennix Navy Environmental Health Center [email protected] Roy Sorenson Director of Public Works Town of Bedford 314 Great Road Bedford, MA 01730 781-275-7605 Elizabeth Bagdonas Bedford Conservation Commission Town Hall, 10 Mudge Way Bedford, MA 01730 781-275-6211 [email protected] Heidi Porter Board of Health, Director 12 Mudge Way Bedford, MA 01730 781-275-6507 [email protected] Tom Kinzer 226 Old Billerica Road Bedford MA 01730 [email protected] Dr. Beatrice Brunkhorst Bedford Board of Health 135 Page Road Bedford, MA 01730-1831 [email protected]

Michele DeTour Deputy Chief Legal Counsel MassPort One Harborside Drive, Suite 200S East Boston, MA 02128-2909 617-568-3126 [email protected] Laura Frazier, ATSDR 1600 Clifton Road MS E-32 Atlanta, GA 30333 [email protected] Restoration Advisory Board Donald Corey Corey Management Co., Inc. 2 Page Road Bedford, MA 01730 [email protected] Interested Community Members Nathaniel Brown Brown & Brown, P.C. 110 Great Road Bedford, MA 01730 Frank McGovern 145 Hartwell Road Bedford, MA 01730 Christine McGovern 151A Bagley Avenue Bedford, MA 01730 Louis Burkhardt Raytheon Systems Company 528 Boston Post Road Mail Stop 1880 Sudbury, MA 01776 978-440-1855 [email protected]












091708/P 6-3

Peter Cone Baker Research 9 Fern Way Bedford, MA 01730 [email protected] Charles Lindberg GZA One Edgewater Drive Norwood, MA 02062 [email protected] John M. Stella PO Box 543 Bedford, MA 01730 Caryn Ann Libbey 28 Independence Road Bedford, MA 01730 Walter Hartford, Jr. 16 Longfellow Road Lexington, MA 02173 Charles Mahar Polaroid Corporation 1 Genetti Circle Bedford, MA 01730 Michael Harrington 9 Patriot Circle Bedford, MA 01730 Sandy Currier Avid Technology 265 David Road Bedford, MA 01730 Richard Mello IBEW Local 103 178 South Road Bedford, MA 01730

Douglas Theriault 151C Bagley Avenue Bedford, MA 01730 John Harris III 28 Independence Road Bedford, MA 01730 Alan Willsky 32 Independence Road Bedford, MA 01730 [email protected] Patricia Hurley 2 Benjamin Isidder Bedford, MA 01730 Mark Pearson 106 Pine Hill Road Bedford, MA 01730 Gary Perlman 1 Congress Street, Suite 1100 (HBT) Boston, MA 02114-2023 [email protected]

Jessica Graham ERG 110 Hartwell Avenue Lexington, MA 02172 [email protected]

Richard Keevers RI Analytical Laboratories, Inc. 131 Coolidge Street, Suite 105 Hudson, MA 01749-1331 978-568-0041 [email protected]







Fiscal Year 2018 Site Management Plan Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant — Bedford, Massachusetts CTO WE20 Abridged Bibliography

091708/P 7-1

7.0 Abridged Bibliography

Table 7-1 presents a chronological listing of select site-specific documents for use as a guide to these documents.

Table 7-1: Abridged Bibliography No. Title Author Date Abbreviation

1 Initial Assessment Study of Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Bedford, Massachusetts

Rogers, Golden & Halpern for Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity.

1988 IAS

2 Technical Memorandum, Remedial Investigation Findings, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Bedford, Massachusetts

Dames & Moore Feb. 1990 Phase I RI Findings

3 Supplemental Investigation, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Bedford, Massachusetts Dames & Moore July 1990

Supplemental Phase I RI Findings

4 Phase II Remedial Investigation Work Plan Brown & Root Environmental May 1992 Phase II RI

Work Plan

5 Technical Memorandum on Remedial Investigation Dames & Moore July 1992 Phase I RI Findings

6 Short-Term Measure Report Halliburton NUS April 1993 STM Report

7 Work Plan for Supplemental Investigations of Site 3, Chlorinated Solvent Plume Tetra Tech May 1998

Site 3 Supplemental Work Plan

8 Work Plan for Supplemental Investigations of Southern Flight Test Area Tetra Tech May 1998

SFTA Supplemental Work Plan

9 Work Plan for Supplemental Investigations of Site 4, BTEX Area Tetra Tech June 1998

Site 4 Supplemental Work Plan

10

United States Environmental Protection Agency New England Region and the United States Department of the Navy Federal Facility Agreement. In the Matter of: U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Bedford Massachusetts.

USEPA, Region I. Effective 2 February 2000 FFA

11 Supplemental Investigation Report, Southern Flight Test Area Tetra Tech January 2000

SFTA Supplemental RI Report

12 Supplemental Investigation Report, Site 4, BTEX Area Tetra Tech December 1999

Site 4 Supplemental RI Report


091708/P 7-2


13 IRA Monitoring Program Report, NWIRP Bedford, Bedford, Massachusetts. Tetra Tech

April 1999 November 1999 February 2000 August 2000 February 2001 August 2001 February 2002 August 2002 February 2003 July 2003

LTM Reports

14 Supplemental Investigation Report, Site 3 Tetra Tech March 2000 Site 3 Supplemental RI Report

15 Remedial Investigation Phase II Report Tetra Tech September 2000 RI Phase II Report

16 Proposed Plan, Site 1 Navy July 2000 Site 1 PRAP 17 Proposed Plan, Site 2 Navy July 2000 Site 2 PRAP 18 Record of Decision, Site 1 Navy September 2000 Site 1 ROD 19 Record of Decision, Site 2 Navy September 2000 Site 2 ROD 20 Feasibility Study, Site 4 Tetra Tech/ENSR March 2001 Site 4 FS

21 Addendum (#1) to Site 4 Feasibility Study Tetra Tech/ENSR October 2001 Site 4 FS Addendum

22 Feasibility Study, Site 3 Tetra Tech/ENSR October 2001 Site 3 FS

23 Proposed Plan, Site 4 Navy April 2002 Site 4 Proposed Plan

24 Thermal Treatment Pilot Test and Remediation Quality Assurance /Quality Control Plan Addendum No. 1

Foster Wheeler November 2003 Thermal Treatment QAPP

25 Semi-Annual Monitoring Report, Southern Flight Test Area ECC April 2003

July 2003

SFTA Semi-Annual Monitoring Reports

26 Draft Final Feasibility Study — Site 3 Tetra Tech/ENSR December 2004 Site 3 DF FS

27 Draft Closeout Report, Site 3, Thermal Treatment Pilot Study Tetra Tech (Tt ECI) December 2005

Site 3 thermal Treatment Pilot Study

28 Draft Closeout Report, Site 4, Thermal Treatment Remediation Tetra Tech (Tt ECI) December 2005

Site 4 Thermal Treatment Remediation

29 Draft Bedrock Groundwater Monitoring Report 2005-2006 — Site 3 Immediate Response Action ECC April 2007

IRA Bedrock Monitoring Report

30 Semi-Annual Monitoring Report, Site 3 Immediate Response Action for April 2007, August 2007 ECC July 2007

February 2008

IRA Semi-Annual Monitoring Reports

31 Draft Monitored Natural Attenuation Data Report, Dec. 2005 to Jan. 2006 — Site 4 ECC July 2007 Site 4 MNA

Data Report 32 Draft Final Feasibility Study Revision 1 — Site 3 Tetra Tech September 2007 Site 3 FS

33 Draft Monitored Natural Attenuation Assessment Report — Site 4 Tetra Tech December 2007 Site 4 MNA

Assessment


091708/P 7-3


34 Final Sampling and Analysis Plan for Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Tetra Tech March 2008 LTM SAP

35 Revised (Draft) Proposed Plan, Site 4 Navy April 2008 Site 4 PRAP

36 Draft Feasibility Study Addendum No. 2, Site 4 Tetra Tech June 2008 Site 4 FS Addendum No. 2

37 Revised (Draft) Record of Decision, Site 4 Navy June 2008 Site 4 ROD 38 Revised (Draft Final) Proposed Plan, Site 4 Navy June 2008 Site 4 PRAP 39 Pre-Final Feasibility Study — Site 3 Tetra Tech June 2008 Site 3 FS

40 Final Summary of Sampling and Analysis Results for Components Laboratory Investigation Tetra Tech 24 July 2008

41 Final Constructability Evaluation for Site 3 Full-Scale Implementation of ERH Thermal Treatment

Tetra Tech 24 July 2008

42 Southern Flight Test Area Memorandum of Understanding Navy, Air Force August 2008 SFTA MOU

43 Final Closeout Report for Site 4 Thermal Treatment Remediation Tetra Tech 12 August 2008

44 Final Closeout Report for Site 3 Thermal Treatment Pilot Study Tetra Tech 12 August 2008

45 Final Feasibility Study Addendum No. 2, Site 4 Tetra Tech August 2008 Site 4 FS Addendum No. 2

46 Revised (Pre-Final) Proposed Plan, Site 4 Navy August 2008 Site 4 PRAP

47 Final Semi-Annual Monitoring Report for March 2008, Southern Flight Test Area Tetra Tech 5 September

2008 SFTA LTM

48 Final Semi-Annual Monitoring Report for March 2008, Site 3 Immediate Response Action Tetra Tech 5 September

2008 Site 3 LTM

49 Letter to Finalize the Site 4 Removal Action Summary Report Tetra Tech 12 September

2008

50 Letter to Finalize the Site 3 Source Area Investigation (work plan and report/data package) Tetra Tech 12 September

2008

51 Final Components Laboratory Summary Report (work plan and report) Tetra Tech 19 September

2008

52 Final Monitored Natural Attenuation Assessment Report — Site 4 Tetra Tech 29 September

2008 Site 4 MNA Assessment

53 Revised (Pre-Final) Proposed Plan, Site 4 Navy 7 October 2008 Site 4 PRAP 54 Draft Final Record of Decision, Site 4 Navy 16 October 2008 Site 4 ROD

55 Final Semi-Annual Monitoring Report for August 2008, Southern Flight Test Area Tetra Tech 16 January 2009 SFTA LTM

56 Final Bedrock Groundwater Monitoring Report for August 2008, Site 3 Immediate Response Action Tetra Tech 23 January 2009

57 Final Semi-Annual Monitoring Report for August 2008, Site 3 Immediate Response Action Tetra Tech 6 February 2009 Site 3 LTM

58 Revised Final, Sampling and Analysis Plan for Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Tetra Tech 10 March 2009 LTM SAP

59 Final Proposed Plan, Site 4 Navy 17 June 2009 Site 4 PRAP

60 Final Semi-Annual Monitoring Report for March 2009, Southern Flight Test Area Tetra Tech 19 August 2009 SFTA LTM


091708/P 7-4


61 Final Semi-Annual Monitoring Report for March 2009, Site 3 Immediate Response Action Tetra Tech 20 August 2009 Site 3 LTM

62 Final Record of Decision, Site 4 Navy 28 September 2009 Site 4 ROD

63 Final Semi-Annual Monitoring Report for September 2009, Southern Flight Test Area Tetra Tech 17 February

2010 SFTA LTM

64 Final Sampling and Analysis Plan for Site 3 Source Area Investigation Tetra Tech 18 February

2010 Site 3 SAP

65 Final Semi-Annual Monitoring Report for September 2009, Site 3 Immediate Response Action Tetra Tech 25 February

2010 Site 3 LTM

66 Final Sampling and Analysis Plan for Site 4 Pre-Design Investigation Tetra Tech 18 March 2010 Site 4 PDI SAP

67 Preliminary Draft Remedial Design, Site 4 (includes Draft Site 4 Pre-Design Investigation Report) Tetra Tech 21 May 2010 Site 4 RD

68 Draft Source Area Investigation Report, Site 3 Tetra Tech 1 June 2010 69 Draft Proposed Plan, Site 3 Navy 15 June 2010 Site 3 PRAP

70 Final Feasibility Study, Site 3 (includes Final Source Area Investigation Report, Site 3) Tetra Tech 29 June 2010 Site 3 FS

71 Final Proposed Plan, Site 3 Navy 14 July 2010 Site 3 PRAP 72 Draft Record of Decision, Site 3 Navy 16 July 2010 Site 3 ROD

73 Draft Final Remedial Design, Site 4 (includes Draft Final Site 4 Pre-Design Investigation Report) Tetra Tech 19 August 2010 Site 4 RD

74 Draft Revision 1 Record of Decision, Site 3 Navy 24 August 2010 Site 3 ROD

75 Draft Revision 2 Record of Decision, Site 3 Navy 13 September 2010 Site 3 ROD

76 Draft Land Use Control Remedial Design, Site 4 Tetra Tech 28 September 2010 Site 4 LUC RD

77 Final Record of Decision, Site 3 Navy 29 September 2010 Site 3 ROD

78 Final March 2010 Semi-Annual Monitoring Report, Southern Flight Test Area Tetra Tech 1 October 2010 SFTA LTM

79 Land Use Controls (LUCs) Annual Inspection, Site 4 Tetra Tech 6 October 2010 Site 4 LUC Inspt

80 Final March 2010 Semi-Annual Monitoring Report, Site 3 Interim Remedial Action Tetra Tech 11 October 2010 Site 3 LTM

81 Injection Rate Testing for Bioremediation Design, Site 3 Tetra Tech 9 November

2010

82 Health and Safety Plan for Pre-Design Investigation Pilot Study at Site 3 Tetra Tech 12 November

2010 Site 3 PDI HASP

83 Draft Remedial Design (Basis of Design), Site 3 Tetra Tech 31 January 2011 Site 3 RD

84 Final September 2010 Semi-Annual Monitoring Report, Southern Flight Test Area Tetra Tech 14 February

2011 SFTA LTM

85 Source Area Investigations Report, Site 4 Tetra Tech 22 February 2011

86 Final September 2010 Semi-Annual Monitoring Report, Site 3 Interim Remedial Action Tetra Tech 28 February

2011 Site 3 LTM

87 Draft Land Use Control Remedial Design for Site 3 Tetra Tech 16 August 2011 Site 3 LUC RD 88 Draft Land Use Control Remedial Design for Site 4 Tetra Tech 16 August 2011 Site 4 LUC RD


091708/P 7-5


89 Final March 2011 Semi-Annual Monitoring Report for Southern Flight Test Area Tetra Tech 18 August 2011 SFTA LTM

90 Final March 2011 Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Report for Site 3 Remedial Action Tetra Tech 19 August 2011 Site 3 RA LTM

91 Final March 2011 Groundwater Sampling Event for Monitored Natural Attenuation, Site 4 — BTEX Plume

Tetra Tech 19 August 2011 Site 4 RA MNA

92 Draft Sampling and Analysis Plan for Groundwater Monitoring Programs at Site 3, Site 4, and SFTA Tetra Tech 6 September

2011 LTM SAP

93 Work Plan for Field Pilot Testing for Bioremediation Design, Site 3 Tetra Tech 19 October 2011

94 Pre-Final (95%) Remedial Design for Site 3 Tetra Tech 26 October 2011 Site 3 RD

95 Final Sampling and Analysis Plan for the Fall 2011 Groundwater Monitoring Programs at Site 3, Site 4, and SFTA

Tetra Tech 9 November 2011 LTM SAP

96 Final Health and Safety Plan for Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Tetra Tech 11 November

2011 LTM SAP

97 Land Use Controls Annual Inspection for 2011 for Site 3 and Site 4 Tetra Tech 5 December

2011 LUC Inspection

98 Final Land Use Control Remedial Design for Site 3 Tetra Tech 9 December 2011 Site 3 LUC RD

99 Final Land Use Control Remedial Design for Site 4 Tetra Tech December 2011 Site 4 LUC RD 100 Final (100%) Remedial Design for Site 3 Tetra Tech January 2012 Site 3 RD

101 Results of Field Pilot Testing for Bioremediation Design, Site 3 Tetra Tech February 2012

102 Draft Remedial Action Work Plan for Site 3 and Site 4 AGVIQ/CH2M HILL 1 March 2012 RAWP

103 Draft Accident Prevention Plan for Site 3 and Site 4 AGVIQ/CH2M HILL 1 March 2012 APP

104 Final Sampling and Analysis Plan for the 2012 Groundwater Monitoring at Sites 3 and 4 AGVIQ/CH2M HILL 21 March 2012 LTM SAP

105 Final Remedial Action Work Plan for Site 3 and Site 4 (includes final Accident Prevention Plan) AGVIQ/CH2M HILL 25 April 2012

RAWP and APP

106 Final November 2011 Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Report for the Site 3 Remedial Action Tetra Tech 9 May 2012 Site 3 LTM

107 Final November 2011 Semi-Annual Monitoring Report, Southern Flight Test Area Tetra Tech 9 May 2012 SFTA LTM

108 Final November 2011 Groundwater Sampling Event for Monitored Natural Attenuation at Site 4 Tetra Tech 10 May 2012 Site 4 LTM

109 Draft Sampling and Analysis Plan for Performance Monitoring for the Remedial Action at Site 3 AGVIQ/CH2M HILL 17 May 2012 SAP

110 Groundwater Sampling Report, March 2012 Monitoring Event, Site 4 — BTEX Plume AGVIQ/CH2M HILL 21 June 2012 Site 4 LTM

111 Groundwater Sampling Report, March 2012 Monitoring Event, Site 3 Remedial Action AGVIQ/CH2M HILL 29 June 2012 Site 3 LTM

112 Final Remedial Action Work Plan Addendum 01 for the Site 3 — Chlorinated Solvent Groundwater Plume and Site 4 — BTEX Plume

AGVIQ/CH2M HILL 19 July 2012 RAWP Addendum 01

113 Final Sampling and Analysis Plan for Performance Monitoring for the Remedial Action at Site 3 AGVIQ/CH2M HILL 14 August 2012 SAP


091708/P 7-6


114 June 2012 Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report, Site 4 — BTEX Plume AGVIQ/CH2M HILL 24 August 2012 Site 4 LTM

115 Land Use Controls Annual Inspection for 2012 for Site 3 and Site 4

H&S Environmental /Tetra Tech 3 October 2012

116 Final June 2012 Semi-Annual Monitoring Report, Southern Flight Test Area Tetra Tech 10 October 2012 SFTA LTM

117 Final Sampling and Analysis Plan for Groundwater Monitoring at Site 3, Site 4, and the Southern Flight Test Area, 2012 — 2014

H&S Environmental/Tetra Tech

26 October 2012 LTM SAP

118 Groundwater Sampling Report, September 2012 Monitoring Event, Site 4 — BTEX Plume AGVIQ/CH2M HILL 17 December

2012 Site 4 LTM

119 Groundwater Sampling Report for the September 2012 Monitoring Event, Site 3 Remedial Action

AGVIQ/CH2M HILL 20 December 2012 Site 3 LTM

120 Performance Groundwater Monitoring Report, October 2012 Baseline Event for Site 3 Remedial Action

AGVIQ/CH2M HILL 21 December 2012

121 Technical Memorandum, Well Construction Report Submittal, Site 3 and Site 4 Remedial Action AGVIQ/CH2M HILL 4 January 2013

122 Final November 2012 Semi-Annual Monitoring Report, Southern Flight Test Area

H&S Environmental/Tetra Tech

11 January 2013 SFTA LTM

123 Final Sampling and Analysis Plan, Supplemental Groundwater and Soil Gas Sampling, Southern Flight Test Area

Tetra Tech 13 January 2013 SFTA SAP

124 Final Health and Safety Plan for Sampling Activities Tetra Tech 16 January 2013 SFTA HASP

125 December 2012 Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report, Site 4 — BTEX Plume AGVIQ/CH2M HILL 14 February

2013 Site 4 LTM

126 Performance Groundwater Monitoring Report, January 2013 — First Quarter Event, Site 3 Remedial Action

AGVIQ/CH2M HILL 6 March 2013

127 February 2013 Semi-Annual Monitoring Report, Southern Flight Test Area

H&S Environmental/ Tetra Tech 31 May 2013 SFTA LTM

128 Groundwater Sampling Report, March 2013 Monitoring Event, Site 3 Remedial Action AGVIQ/CH2M HILL 3 June 2013 Site 3 LTM

129 Groundwater Monitoring Report, March 2013 Monitoring Event, Site 4 — BTEX Plume AGVIQ/CH2M HILL 5 June 2013 Site 4 LTM

130 Draft Explanation of Significant Differences to the Record of Decision for Site 3 — Chlorinated Solvent Groundwater Plume

Tetra Tech 20 June 2013 Site 3/SFTA ESD

131 Fact Sheet, Navy Proposes a Change to the Current Remedial Action for Site 3 — Chlorinated Solvent Groundwater Plume

Tetra Tech 6 August 2013

132 Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report, June 2013 Monitoring Event, Site 4 — BTEX Plume AGVIQ/CH2M HILL 12 August 2013 Site 4 LTM

133 Supplemental Groundwater and Soil Gas Sampling for Southern Flight Test Area Tetra Tech 26 August 2013

134 Land Use Controls Annual Inspection for 2013 for Site 3 and Site 4 Tetra Tech 24 October 2013


091708/P 7-7


135 Vapor Intrusion Evaluation for the Southern Flight Test Area Tetra Tech 21 November

2013

136 September 2013 Semi-Annual Monitoring Report, Southern Flight Test Area Tetra Tech 19 December

2013 SFTA LTM

137 Groundwater Sampling Report, September 2013 Monitoring Event, , Site 3 — Remedial Action AGVIQ/CH2M HILL 20 December

2013 Site 3 LTM

138 Groundwater Sampling Report, September 2013 Monitoring Event, , Site 4 — BTEX Plume AGVIQ/CH2M HILL 20 December

2013 Site 4 LTM

139 Performance Groundwater Monitoring Report October 2013 Second Quarter Event for Site 3 — Remedial Action

AGVIQ/CH2M HILL 30 January 2014 Site 3 RA Mon

140 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report 2012 for Site 3 and Site 4 AGVIQ/CH2M HILL 31 January 2014

Site 3 LTM and Site 4 LTM

141

Construction Completion Report for the Remedial Construction Activities at Site 3 Chlorinated Solvent Groundwater Plume7 and Site 4 BTEX Plume

AGVIQ/CH2M HILL 14 February 2014


142 Addendum #1 March 2014 Sampling and Analysis Plan for Groundwater Monitoring at Site 3, Site 4, and Southern Flight Test Area 2012 — 2014

Tetra Tech March 2014 Site 3, 4, SFTA SAP Addendum

143 Final Explanation of Significant Difference to the Site 3 ROD SFTA Tetra Tech March 2014 Site 3 ESD

144 Land Use Control Remedial Design for Site 3 — Chlorinated Solvent Groundwater Plume and Southern Flight Test Area

Tetra Tech 2 May 2014 SFTA LUC RD

145 Draft Operating Properly and Successfully Demonstration and Interim Remedial Action Completion Report

Tetra Tech 9 May 2014 SFTA OPS IRACR

146 March 2014 Semi-Annual Monitoring Report, Southern Flight Test Area Tetra Tech June 2014 SFTA LTM

147 March 2014 Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report, Site 4 — BTEX Plume Tetra Tech June 2014 Site 4 LTM

148 Draft 2013 Five-Year Review for Site 3, Southern Flight Test Area, and Site 4 Resolution Consultants 3 July 2014

First Five Year Review

149 Groundwater Monitoring Report, March 2014 Monitoring Event, , Site 3 — Remedial Action Tetra Tech August 2014 Site 3 LTM

150 June 2014 Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report, Site 4 BTEX Plume Tetra Tech September 2014 Site 4 LTM

151 Site Management Plan Fiscal Year 2015 Resolution Consultants September 2014 SMP 2015

152 Final Five-Year Review for Site 3, Southern Flight Test Area, and Site 4 Resolution Consultants September 2014

First Five Year Review

153 Final Sampling and Analysis Plan Groundwater Investigation for Emerging Contaminants at Site 3 and Southern Flight Test Area

Resolution Consultants November 2014

SAP for Emerging Contaminant in GW

154 Land Use Controls Annual Inspection for 2014 for NWIRP Sovereign Consulting 21 November

2014 LUC Inspection

155 Grant of Easement Agreement and Abandonment of Prior Easement between Mas7sachusetts Port Authority and the Navy

Massachusetts Port Authority

25 November 2014 Easement


091708/P 7-8


156 Performance Groundwater Monitoring Report September 2014 Third Quarter Event for Site 3 — Remedial Action

AGVIQ/CH2M HILL December 2014 Site 3 RA Mon

157 September 2014 Semi-Annual Monitoring Report, Southern Flight Test Area Sovereign Consulting December 2014 SFTA LTM

158 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report 2013 for Site 3 and Site 4 Tetra Tech January 2015


159 Land Use Control Remedial Design for Site 3 — Chlorinated Solvent Groundwater Plume and Southern Flight Test Area

Tetra Tech January 2015 SFTA and Site 3 LUC RD

160 September 2014 Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report, Site 4 BTEX Plume Sovereign Consulting January 2015 Site 4 LTM

161 Groundwater Monitoring Report, September 2014 Monitoring Event, Site 3 — Remedial Action Tetra Tech January 2015 Site 3 LTM

162 Annual Operations Report for S7ite 3 Groundwater Extraction and Treatment System Sovereign Consulting February 2015 Site 3 LTM

163 December 2014 Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report, Site 4 BTEX Plume Sovereign Consulting February 2015 Site 4 LTM

164 Preliminary Closeout Report USEPA, Region I March 2015 PCOR 165 Health and Safety Plan for Sampling Activities Tetra Tech April 2015 HASP

166

Sampling and Analysis Plan Addendum; Groundwater Investigation for Emerging Contaminants at Site 3 and Southern Flight Test Area (SFTA 1,4-Dioxane)

Resolution Consultants April 2015 SFTA 1,4-Dioxane SAP

167 Final Work Plan for Discrete Interval Groundwater Sampling Site 3 Chlorinated Solvent Groundwater Plume

Tetra Tech 15 April 2015

WP Site 3 Discrete Interval GW Sample

168 Draft Groundwater Investigation for Emerging Contaminants, Site 3 and SFTA Resolution Consultants May 2015

Site 3 and SFTA Emerging Contaminants

169 Work Plan Supplemental Soil Sampling for the Human Health Risk Assessment — Residential Scenario — Site 3, Site 4, SFTA

Tetra Tech May 2015 WP Suppl Soil Sample for HHRA

170 Performance Groundwater Monitoring Report May 2015 Fourth Quarter Event for Site 3 — Remedial Action

AGVIQ/CH2M HILL June 2015 Site 3 RA Mon

171

Sampling and Analysis Plan Addendum; Groundwater Investigation for Emerging Contaminants at Site 3 and Southern Flight Test Area (Site 3 1,4-Dioxane)

Resolution Consultants July 2015

Site 3 1,4-Dioxane Delineation SAP

172 Groundwater Monitoring Report, April 2015 Monitoring Event, Site 3 — Remedial Action Sovereign Consulting August 2015 Site 3 LTM

173 April 2015 Semi-Annual Monitoring Report, Southern Flight Test Area Sovereign Consulting August 2015 SFTA LTM

174 April 2015 Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report, Site 4 BTEX Plume Sovereign Consulting August 2015 Site 4 LTM

175 Operating Properly and Successfully Demonstration and Interim Remedial Action Completion Report for Southern Flight Test Area of Operable Unit 1

Tetra Tech October 2015 SFTA OPS IRACR


091708/P 7-9


176 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report 2014 for Site 3, Site 4 and SFTA Sovereign Consulting October 2015

Site 3 LTM, SFTA LTM and Site 4 LTM

177 Land Use Controls Annual Inspection for 2015 for NWIRP Sovereign Consulting October 2015 LUC Inspection

178 June 2015 Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report, Site 4 BTEX Plume Sovereign Consulting October 2015 Site 4 LTM

179 Discrete Interval Groundwater Sampling Results — Site 3 Tetra Tech November 2015

Site 3 Discrete Interval GW Sample

180 Supplemental Soil Sample Results for the HHRA, Residential Scenario Tetra Tech December 2015

HHRA Suppl Soil Sample

181 Risk Evaluation Technical Memorandum – Residential Soil Scenario Site 3, Site 4, SFTA Tetra Tech January 2016

Site 3, Site 4, SFTA Risk Evaluation

182 September 2015 Semi-Annual Monitoring Report, Southern Flight Test Area Sovereign Consulting January 2016 SFTA LTM

183 September 2015 Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report, Site 4 BTEX Plume Sovereign Consulting January 2016 Site 4 LTM

184 September 2015, Semi-Annual Monitoring Report, Site 3 Sovereign Consulting January 2016 Site 3 LTM

185 Final Groundwater Investigation for Emerging Contaminants, Site 3 and SFTA Resolution Consultants February 2016

Site 3 and SFTA Emerging Contaminants

186 Groundwater Investigation for 1,4-Dioxane SFTA Resolution Consultants February 2016 SFTA 1,4-Dioxane

187 Annual Operations Report for Site 3 Groundwater Extraction and Treatment System Sovereign Consulting February 2016 Site 3 LTM


189 Treatability Study Work Plan — Site 3 GWETS Resolution Consultants March 2016 Site 3

190 Draft Groundwater Investigation for 1,4-Dioxane — Site 3 Resolution Consultants May 2016

Site 3 - 1,4-Dioxane

191 March 2016 Semi-Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Site 3 Sovereign Consulting June 2016 Site 3 LTM

192 March 2016 Semi-Annual Monitoring Report, Southern Flight Test Area Sovereign Consulting June 2016 SFTA LTM

193 March 2016 Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report, Site 4 BTEX Plume Sovereign Consulting June 2016 Site 4 LTM

194 Draft Environmental Condition of Property for Southern Flight Test Area Resolution Consultants June 2016

SFTA Draft ECP

195 June 2016 Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report, Site 4 BTEX Plume Sovereign Consulting August 2016 Site 4 LTM

196 Land Use Control Annual Inspection Report For 2016 for NWIRP Bedford Sovereign Consulting October 2016

LUC Inspection – Site 3, Site 4 and SFTA

197 Sept 2016 Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report, Site 4 BTEX Plume Sovereign Consulting January 2017 Site 4 LTM


091708/P 7-10


198 September 2016 Semi-Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Site 3 Sovereign Consulting January 2017 Site 3 LTM

199 September 2016, Semi-Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Southern Flight Test Area Sovereign Consulting January 2017 SFTA LTM


201 Annual Operations Report for Site 3 Groundwater Extraction and Treatment System Sovereign Consulting February 2017 Site 3 O&M

202 Revised Draft LUC RD (Adds PFAS as COCs for SFTA) Resolution Consultants April 2017

Site 3 and SFTA LUC RD

203 March 2017 Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report, Site 4 BTEX Plume Sovereign Consulting April 2017 Site 4 LTM

204 March 2017, Semi-Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Southern Flight Test Area Sovereign Consulting April2017 SFTA LTM

205 March 2017, Semi-Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Site 3 Sovereign Consulting June 2017 Site 3 LTM

206 Draft Letter Work Plan, EVO Injections, 2nd Round KOMAN Government Solutions LLC April 2017 Site 3

207 Draft Second Round 1,4-Dioxane Sampling Report Resolution Consultants May 2017 Site 3

Fiscal Year 2018 Site Management Plan Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant — Bedford, Massachusetts CTO WE20 References

091708/P 8-1

8.0 References

AGVIQ/CH2MHILL, 2012. Final Remedial Action Work Plan for Site 3 and Site 4, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Bedford, Massachusetts. April.

AGVIQ/CH2MHILL, 2014. Construction Completion Report for the Remedial Construction Activities at Site 3 — Chlorinated Solvent Groundwater Plume and Site 4 — BTEX Plume, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Bedford, Massachusetts. February.

AGVIQ/CH2MHILL, 2015. Performance Groundwater Monitoring Report May 2015 — Fourth Quarter/Post-Injection Event Site 3 — Remedial Action, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Bedford, Massachusetts. June.

Brown & Root Environmental, 1992. Phase II Remedial Investigation Work Plan, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Bedford, Massachusetts. May.

Dames & Moore, 1990a. Technical Memorandum, Remedial Investigation Findings, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Bedford, Massachusetts. February 1990.

Dames & Moore, 1990b. Supplemental Investigation, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Bedford, Massachusetts. July.

Dames & Moore, 1992. Technical Memorandum of Remedial Investigations, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Bedford, Massachusetts. August.

DoD (Department of Defense), 1996. Relative Risk Ranking Evaluation Primer, Department of Defense.

Halliburton NUS. Short-Term Measure Report, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Bedford, Bedford, Massachusetts. April 1993.

Navy (U.S. Department of the Navy), 2000a. Proposed Plan — Site 1, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Bedford, Bedford, Massachusetts. July.

Navy, 2000b. Proposed Plan — Site 2, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Bedford, Bedford, Massachusetts. July.

Navy, 2000c. Record of Decision — Site 1, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Bedford, Bedford, Massachusetts. September.

Navy, 2000d. Record of Decision — Site 2, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Bedford, Bedford, Massachusetts. September.


091708/P 8-2

Navy, 2002. Proposed Plan — Site 4, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Bedford, Bedford, Massachusetts. April.

Navy, 2009a. Proposed Plan — Site 4, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Bedford, Bedford, Massachusetts. June.

Navy, 2009b. Record of Decision — Site 4, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Bedford, Bedford, Massachusetts. September.

Navy, 2010a. Final Proposed Plan — Site 3, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Bedford, Bedford, Massachusetts. July.

Navy, 2010b. Record of Decision — Site 3, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Bedford, Bedford, Massachusetts. September.

Navy, 2014. Final Explanation of Significant Difference to the Site 3 ROD, Southern Flight Test Area, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Bedford, Massachusetts. March.

Navy and U.S. Air Force, 2008. Southern Flight Test Area Memorandum of Understanding, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Bedford, Bedford, Massachusetts. August.

NEESA (Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity), 1988. Initial Assessment Study of Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Bedford, Massachusetts. Prepared by Rogers, Golden & Halpern.

Resolution Consultants, 2014a. First Five-Year Review for Site 3, Southern Flight Test Area, and Site 4, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Bedford, Massachusetts. September.

Resolution Consultants, 2014b. Final Sampling and Analysis Plan – Groundwater Investigation for Emerging Contaminants at, Site 3 and SFTA, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Bedford, Bedford, Massachusetts. November.

Resolution Consultants, 2015a Sampling and Analysis Plan Addendum; Groundwater Investigation for Emerging Contaminants at Site 3 and SFTA, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Bedford, Bedford, Massachusetts. April.

Resolution Consultants, 2015b Sampling and Analysis Plan Addendum; Groundwater Investigation for Emerging Contaminants at Site 3 and SFTA, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Bedford, Bedford, Massachusetts. July.


091708/P 8-3

Resolution Consultants, 2016a. Groundwater Investigation for Emerging Contaminants, Site 3 and SFTA, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Bedford, Bedford, Massachusetts. February.

Resolution Consultants, 2016b. Groundwater Investigation for 1,4-Dioxane, Southern Flight Test Area Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Bedford, Bedford, Massachusetts. February.

Resolution Consultants, 2016c. Treatability Study Work Plan, Site 3 Operable Unit 1, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Bedford, Bedford, Massachusetts. March.

Resolution Consultants, 2016d. Draft Groundwater Investigation for 1,4-Dioxane, Site 3 Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Bedford, Bedford, Massachusetts. May.

Tetra Tech, 2000. Final Remedial Investigation Phase II Report, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Bedford, Massachusetts. September.

Tetra Tech, 2007. Draft Final Feasibility Study Revision 1 — Site 3, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Bedford, Massachusetts. September.

Tetra Tech, 2008a. Pre-Final Feasibility Study — Site 3, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Bedford, Massachusetts. June.

Tetra Tech, 2008b. Final Closeout Report for Site 3 Thermal Treatment Pilot Test, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Bedford, Massachusetts. August.

Tetra Tech, 2008c. Final Monitored Natural Attenuation Assessment Report — Site 4, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Bedford, Massachusetts. September.

Tetra Tech, 2010a Final Feasibility Study — Site 3, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Bedford, Massachusetts. June.

Tetra Tech, 2010b. Draft Final Remedial Design — Site 4, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Bedford, Massachusetts. August.

Tetra Tech, 2011a. Final Land Use Control Design for Site 3, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Bedford, Massachusetts. December.

Tetra Tech, 2011b. Final Land Use Control Design for Site 4, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Bedford, Massachusetts. December.

Tetra Tech, 2012. Final (100%) Remedial Design for Site 3, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Bedford, Massachusetts. January.


091708/P 8-4

Tetra Tech, 2013. Final Vapor Intrusion Evaluation for Southern Flight Test Area, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Bedford, Massachusetts. November.

Tetra Tech, 2015. Operating Properly and Successfully Demonstration / Interim

Remedial Action Completion Report for the Southern Flight Test Area of Operable Unit 1. Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Bedford, Massachusetts. October.

Tetra Tech, 2016. Letter to Maritza Montegross regarding Risk Evaluation Technical Memorandum – Residential Soil Scenario Site 3, Site 4, and the SFTA, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Bedford, Massachusetts. January 29.

Tetra Tech/ENSR, 2001a. Feasibility Study, Site 4, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Bedford, Massachusetts. March.

Tetra Tech/ENSR, 2001b. Feasibility Study, Site 3, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Bedford, Massachusetts. October.

Tetra Tech/ENSR, 2001c. Addendum to Site 4 Feasibility Study, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Bedford, Massachusetts. October.

Tetra Tech/ENSR, 2004. Draft Final Feasibility Study — Site 3, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Bedford, Massachusetts. December.

USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) and Navy, 2000. New England Region and the United States Department of the Navy Federal Facility Agreement. In the Matter of: U.S. Department of the Navy Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Bedford Massachusetts. Effective: February 2.

USEPA, 2015. Preliminary Closeout Report, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Bedford, Massachusetts. March.

APPENDIX A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR THE RELATIVE RISK SITE EVALUATION

CONCEPT

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM FACT SHEET

Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security)

Defense Environmental Cleanup Program Fact Sheet

The Relative Risk Site Evaluation Concept

Introduction

The Department of Defense (DoD) considers environmental restoration as an integral part of its daily mission activities. At installations around the country, environmental restoration activities are underway to address contamination resulting from past DoD operations. Environmental analysis and cleanup activities address a wide variety of sites contaminated with fuels, solvents, chemicals, heavy metals, and common industrial materials.

Given the large number of sites to be addressed and limitations on money and people to work on these sites each year, DoD believes that-a risk-based approach should be applied to work sequencing at active military installations, Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) installations, and formerly used defense propenies using relative risk as a key factor. The relative risk site evaluation framework described in this fact sheet provides a means of helping accomplish this objective.

The framework for evaluating site reialive risk was published in September l 994, in the Relative Risk Sire Evaluation Primer ( interim Edition) which contained instructions for performing relative risk site ev.!luations at sites across DoD. A revised edition of the Primer was issued in June 1996.

R,.lniiv, Rid· ,;1, Fvnfunrinn Prirn,r

Definition of Relative Risk Site Evaluation

The relative risk site evaluation framework is a methodology used by all DoD Components to evaluate the relative risk posed by a site in relation to other siles. It is a tool us~ across all of DoD to group sites into high, medium, · and low categories based on an evaluation of site information using three facters: the contaminant hazard factor (CHF), the migration pathway factor (MPF), and the receptor factor (RF). Factors are based on a quantitative evaluation of contaminants and a qualitative evaluation of pathways and human and ecological receptors in the four

· media mosl likely to result in significant

exposure-groundwater, surface water, sediment, and surface soils. A representation of this evaluation concept is presented in Figures I and 2. Figure l also depicts possible opportunities for stakeholder input into the technical evaluation.

The relative risk site evaluation framework is a qualitative and easy to understand methodology for evaluating the relative risks posed by sites and should not be equated with more formal risk assessments conducted to assess baseline risks posed by sites. It is a tool to assist in sequencing environment.al restoration work (i.e .. known requirements such as remedial investigation or cleanup actions) to be done by a DoD Component. It is designed to handle the broad range of sites that exist at DoD installations and the broad range of data available. Tne grouping of sites into high,

I .,.

"Sites tor current 000 installations ec.ual" with "Pr;:,jec:ts· mu-,., F;:,rr.,.;~y Utilized 0.:fer,se Sites {FllOS) Program

··1r,s1.tlbtions eQuale with •properties· in lll<t FllDS Program

-·oata assc~ by environmcniar medium

t t

Regufa1or and Public Stakeholder Involvement in Technical Evaluation

HIGH

MEDIUM

LOW

t

Figure I. Relative Risk Site Evaluation Concept Summary

Groundwater

Site Information

Surface Water and Sediment"

CHF = CanUminanl H.iz.or<: Factor MPr = Migration Pa:hway Factor

Ai' ; ~ca:ptor Factor

Soil

"lndlX!es human al'ld ecological encpo;nts

Ev.t.LUA110N FACTORS

rCH!'-+- MPF-+-

CHF-+- M?F~

rCHF~ M?F-+-

MEDlA•SPEClflC REJJ.TTV£ RISI( RATING

SELJ;CT HIGHEST MEDIA RATING

RF-+-_ Catt-gocy ~ ('"V'\-~· t Overall Stte

RF ~ Ca1ego,y Category-~-L.,_)

, High, Medium, or

/ Low

RF~ C.tego,y ~_-Low)

Figure 2. Flow Diagram of the Relative Risk Site £valuation Framework

Relative Risk Sire Evaluarion Primer ?. Summer 1996 (Revised Edition)

.·.

medium, or low relative risk categories is not a substitute for either a baseline risk assessment or health assessment; it is not a means of placing sites into a Response Complete/No Further Action category; and it is not a tool for justifying a panicular type of action (e.g., the selection of a remedy).

Use of the relative risk site evaluation framework is restricted to environmental restoration sites and does not extend to unexploded ordnance (UXO) removal, building demolition/debris removal (BD/DR), potentially responsible party (PRP) activities, or compliance activities.

Relative Risk and Funding Decisions

Relative risk is not the sole factor in determining the sequence of environmental restoration work, but it is an important consideration in the priority setting process. It should be factored into all priority setting decisio~s. and should be discussed with regulators and public stakeholders in the environmental restoration process.

The actual funding priority for a site is identified after relative risk information is combined with other important risk mana..,ement considerations (e.g., the .:,

statutory and regulat0ry status of a particular installation or site, public stakeholder concerns. program execution considerations, and economic factors). These additional risk management considerations can result in a decision to fund work at a site that is not classified as a high relative risk. DoD Comoonen!S have each developed guidelines for c~mbining relative risk and risk mana..,emenc considerations as part of their .:,

planning. programming. and budgeting process.

The relative risk site evaluation framework does not address the question of whether work is necessary at a site; it only provides information for use in helping to determine the general sequence in which sites will be addressed. At the DoD headquarters level. it

Relc;;ive Risk Sire Evaluation Primer 3

also provides a framework for plar:ning, programming, and budgeting requirements, a topic discussed below.

Requirements for Relative Risk Site Evaluations

Relative risk site evaluations are required for all sires at active military installations, BRAC insrallations, and fonnerly used defense properties that have future funding requirements that are not classified as (1) having "all remedies in place," (2) "response complete," (3) lacking sufficient information. or (4) abandoned ordnance. These four situations are discussed in the following four paragraphs.

Relative risk site evaluations are not required (NR) for sites classified as having all remedies in place (RIP) even though they may be in remedial action operation (RAO) or Iona-term monitoring (L TM). A RIP

a::, • •

determination requires that remed1al action construction is complete for a site.

Relative risk site evaluations are not required (NR) for sites classified as response complete {RC). Sites classified as RC are those where a DoD Component deems that no further action (NFA) is required with the possible exception of L1M. An RC determination requires that one of the following apply: (1) there is no evidence that contaminants were released at the site, (2) no contaminants were detected at the site other than at background concentrations, (3) contaminants attributable to the site are below action levels used for risk screening, (4) the results of a baseline risk assessment demonstrate that cumulative risks posed by the site are below established thresholds, or (5) removal and/or remedial action operations (RA Os) at a site have been imolemented, completed, and are the final ac;ion for the site. Only LTM remains.

Relative risk site evaluations should be based on the information currently available on contaminants, migration pathways, and receptors. Sites Jacking sufficient information

Summer 1996 (Revised Edition)

for the conduct of a relative risk she evaluation should be given a "Not Evaluated" designation and should then be programmed for additional study, a removal action if warranted, or other appropriate response action, including deferral, before they are evaluated.

Sites comprised solely of abandoned ordnance are not subject to the relative risk site evaluation described in this Primer. Such sites should be evaluated using a separate risk procedure, which is discussed in the management guidance cited above (Office of the Under Secretary of Defense [Environmental Security], 1994).

Implementation of the Relative Risk Site Evaluation Framework

DoD's goal is to conduct relative risk site evaluations at the field level with the involvement of the regulators and public stak~hok!_ers {see Figure I). The technical evaluation of sites using the evaluation framework can serve as a basis for discussion and negotiation with regulators and public stakeholders. In particular. regulators and public stakeholders can help identify receptors, and can make judgments about the extent of contaminant migration in various environmental media at a site. \Vhere they exist, Restoration Advisory Boards (RABs) are an excellent forum for obtaining public stakeholder input on these aspects of site relative risk. Other opportunities for public stakeholder involvement may also be appropriate. Regulators and public stakeholders should always be given the oppormnity·to participate in the development and review of relative risk site evaluation data before the data is used in planning and programming.

Management Uses of Relative Risk Information

DoD and DoD Components are using the relative risk site evaluation framework as a tool to help sequence work at sites and as a headquarters program management tool. As a

Relatiw: Risk Site Evaluation Primer

program management t.:ioL ,::::: fra:n~work is being used by DoD an9 DoD Components to periodically identify the distribution of sites in-each of three relative risk categorieshigh, medium. and low. A series of discrete relative risk site evaluations provides headquarters program managers with a macrerleve! view of changes in relative risk distributions within DoD over time.

The relative risk site evaluation framework and resulting data also provide DoD with a basis for establishing goals and performance measures for the environmental restoration program. In this regard. DoD has established goals for all DoD Components to reduce relative risk at sites in Defense Environmental Restoration Account (DERA) and BRAC programs or to have remedial systems in place where necessary for these sites, within the i::ontext of legal agreements. DoD and DoD Components are tracking progress towards these relafr,re risk reduction goals as one of several program measures of merit (MOMs) at the headquarters level. Another MOM tracks the number of sites where cleanup action has been taken and relative risk has been redu:::ed in one or more media. Resultant information is used to provide the necessary feedback to develop and adjust program requirements and budget projections, as well as to assess whether established goals reflect fiscal reality.

For More Information

At the Installation, contact

At DoD Headquarters, contact the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security - Cleanup) at 703/697-7475.

Summer 1996 (Revised Edition)

APPENDIX B RELATIVE RISK RANKING WORKSHEETS

0011

CONTAMINANT Mad111u m Cone. S11nd1rd IIAZARD Conl1mlo1nl m2/K& m2'Ka Rat!o(l) FACTOR(!) Benzolatpvreno 2.2 S.6 0.390 (CIIF) Arsenic {cancer endoointl 4.7 21.0 0.220 (Piece an "X" nollt to ono below)

Aluminum 8,610.0 75,000.0 0.110 Dibentlahlanthracenc 0.43 5.6 0.080 Slenlncant (JC Total > lCIO): Cadmium and comoounds 2.7 37.0 0.Q70 Lead 29.9 400.0 0.070 Moderate (U Tola I 2 - I 00): DcnwlbJnuoranthene 4.1 56.0 0.070 MMRanese and compound! 131.0 3,100.0 0.040 Mlnlm1I (Ir Tolal < 2): X Calcium 925.0 23,000.0 0.040 Vanadium 20.2 520.0 0.040

(I) Evaluale for human conwnlnants only Total: 1.240 (2) Ratio= Muimum Concen1ra1ion/Standard Note: Only lop ten cont1minanlS are displayed.

MIGRATION Evldcnl • Analytical dalJI or observable evidence indicates that Connntd - Low poss lb ii i1y for conllminotio11 to be prcsenl at (Ploce an "X" no•t lo one below) l'ATIIWAY conu1111ina1ion is present 11, Is moving tows.rds, or hos or migrate 10 a point of exposure

t'ACTOR 111oved to a poinl of exposure Evident: (Ml'F)

Po1,n1l1I - l'ossibility for con!Jlrninalion to be present at or migr1te Pol,ot1"1: too point of exposure; or infom,ation is not sumcient to n1oko e determination of Evident or Confined Coonotd: X

Brief Ratluna/e fur Stlrctlun: Minimal cootamlo1lloo, below rq:ulalory lent..

(Place Ill\ "X" next to one below) tU,:CEP'fOR ltlentlfied • K•ceplors id•nlified 1hel have access to Limited· Little or no potenlinl for receptors 10 hove access to

FACTOR con1an1ina1ed soil co11tan1inatcd soil ldentlntd: (lffl

Potential: ' PutcollMI • Polcnliol for receptors to have·1ccess to

contaminated soil Llmlltd: X

Brief Ratlunaltfur Stlectlun: Pavtd 11atklng aru provide.! 1dcqu11e <over.

Activity Nam BEDFORD MA NWRIP Site Name: SITE 000D1 Soll Category: Low (lligh, Medium, Low)

Surfqce Waler Human

CONTAMINANT M11lmum Cone. Staodard

IIAZARI> Co11lamlu111 Uii/1, ut!/L Ratlo12> FACTOR(!) Lead 51.9 4.0 12.980

(CIIFJ Calcium 33,700.0 I 1,000.0 3.060 (Place an "X'' nex110 one below) Cadmium and compound, 19.l 18.0 1.060 Arsenic (concer endpoinl) 3.6 4.S 0.800 Slga!ncaol (lftoral > I 00): Aluminum 2,480.0 37,000.0 0.070 Mw1111111t se wid comouunds . 77.4 1,700.0 0.050 Moderate (If Total 2. 100): X Vanadium 8.6 260.0 0.030 Cuooer and compowids 39.8 1,400.0 0.030 Mlolmal (l(Totwl < 1): Zinc 176.0 11,000.0 0.020 Bis(2-elhylhexyl)ph1hal1te (DEHP) 4.0 480.0 0.010

( I J Evaluate for human contamin11J1ts only Total: 18,110 (2) Ratio a Maximum Concentrotion/Standard Nole: Only lop ten contaminants are displayed.

'

MIGRATION Evldeo1 • J\nalyticel data or observable evidence indicates that Connatd. lnfonnation indicale.1 a low potential for conlamination (Pia.cc an "X" next to one below) PATHWAY conlwnination in the media Is pre,ent 11, is moving 10 a potential poinl of exposure (could by due to the

FACTOR toward, or has moved lo a point of exposure presence of geological structures or physical controls) Evldeol : (Ml'F)

Pu1eo1i~I - Pouibilily for contRmin,tion 10 be present al or migrate Potenll»I: 10 a poini of exposure·, or Information is not sufficient to make a delennination of Evident or Confined CooOned: X

Brief Ratlunult! fur Selt!<"l/un; Poor dr•luge or ourf•c• soll• •ad low permublllly of glod•I deposit•.

(Place an "X" next lo one below) IH'.CEPTOH ldenrlntd • R~ceptors idenlifred that have access lo surface water Llmll<d. LiNlc or no polenlial for receplors to hnve access lo

~-ACTOH surface waler ldentlfitd: X (Rf)

' Poteotlal: Poteollal • Polenliol fur receptors to have access lo surface water

Limited:

Brit/ RatiV1'Qftfur Stltctlv1': Down gradleol wetlands ldeotl0td with rct"epton,

Activity Nam UEDFORD MA NWRIP Site Name: SITE0000I Surface Water Human Category: Low (High, Medium, Low)

Soll

CONTAMINANT Mulmum Coat. S11ndard

IIAZAltD Cont11nla1al mo/Ka ml!IK2 R1!10(2)

FACTOlt (I) Aluminum 8,730.0 75,000.0 0. 120

(CIIFJ Cadmi um and compounds 3.7 37.0 0.100 (Place an "X" neKt lo one below) Calcium l,SB0.O 23,000.0 0.070 Manllllllese and compounds 162.0 3,100.0 0.050 Slanlflcant (UT011I > 100): Lead IS. I 400.0 0.040·

Va11adium . 23,2 520.0 0.040 Moden11e (U Tola! 2 - 100): Benzofalovrenc O.IS 5.6 0.030 Nickel and compounds 13.9 1,500.0 0.010 Mlolmal (H Total< 2): X Barium and comPOunds 34.1 5,200.0 0.010 Chromium (lolal) 19.4 3,000.0 0.010

(I) Evaluate for human contaminants only Total: 0,490

(2) Ralio "' MIIJ(imum Concen1ta1ion/Stand111d Note: Only top ten coulaminanls are displayed,

MIGRATION Evldeal · Analytical data or ob5ervable evidence indicates Chat -. Connaed - Low possibility for contamination to be present at (Place an "X" neKl to one below) PATIIWAV contamination is present at, is moving towards, or hBS or migrate to a point of eKposurc

FACTOR moved lo a point of exposure Evldenl: (MPF)

Potcnll~I - Possibility for contamination to be present at or migtale Poleotlal: to a point of uposure; or information is not sufficient to make a de1ermlne1ion of Evidenl or Confined CooRoed: X

Brief Raflonalefor Stftctlon: Mfolmal cootamlaalloa, below rtgulatory level,, Conlamln•llon mlgnitlon low due lo geolog. y,

(Piece l!ll "X" next to one oolow) RECEPTOR hlentlncd • R~eplors identified tho! have access lo Limited· Little or no potential for receptors 10 have access to

FACTOR conlnminAled soil contaminale-0 soil ldeollfiNI: (RF)

Poteotlal: Porenth,I. Po1cnlial for receptors lo have ilccc,s to

conlaminated soil Llml1ed1 X

Brief Ratlmta/e for Stleclfun: Paved parking areH provide adequate cover.

Activity Nant OEDFORD MA NWRIP Site Name: SITE00002 Soll Category: Low (High, Medium. Low)

:suruce water Human

CONTAMINANT Maximum Con<. Slaod.,,I IIAZARD Coolo1Dlo1nt ull/L u"-'L Ratlo(ll f'ACTOR(I) Lead 12.0 4.0 3.000

(CHF) Calcium 6,860.0 11,000.0 0.620 (Place an "X" next to one below) M1111Raneso and compounds 338.0 1,700.0 0.200

Zinc 634.0 11,000.0 · 0.060 Significant (lrTotal > 100)1 Aluminum ·815.0 37,000.0 0.020 Copper and compounds - !3. 1 1,400.0 0.010 Moderate (Ir Total 2 • IOO): X Oarium and compounds 27.0 2,600.0 0.010

Mlolmal (JrTolal < l ):

( I) Evaluate for hun1an contaminants only Total: J.920 (2) Ratio m Maximum Concenlration/Slllndord Note: Only top ten contaminanls arc displayed.

MIGRATION Evident• i\naly1ical data or obsernble evidence indiceles lhal ConOncd • Information indica1os a low potenllal for contaminalion (Place an "X" next to one below) l'A'fl!WAY contamination in the media is pment al, is moving to a polential point or cxposwc (could by due lo lhe

~'ACTOR Inward, or has moved lo a point of exposure presence or geological structures or phy,icll controls) Evident: (Ml'f')

Potential - Po,sibility for contaminalion to be present ot or migrate Poteollal: to a point of exposure; or informa1ion i, not ,ufficienl lo make a determinalion of Evident or Confined Con0ned: X

Brit/ Rallunalt fur Stltctlun: Low potnrlal for cont1mlua1111 to mlgrale due lo low permeablllty or underlyloc btdrock an -d glacial deposition.

RECEPTOR ld•ntlOed • Reccplors identified I.hat have acce55 to surfoce waler Lfmlled • U1tlo or no potential for receptors to hnve acccH to (Place an "X" neKt to one below)

!'ACTOR surface waler lden11nn1: X (kf')

Pol•nllal: Potentlal- Potenlial for receptors to have occess lo surface water

Limited:

Brit/ Rat/oll<llt for Stltdlon! Down gradient wetl10ds ldeotlned with rttepton.

Activity Nam BEDFORD MA NWRIP Site Name: SITE00002 Surface Water Human Category: Low (High, Medium, Low)

Mmment Human

CONTAMINANT Madmum Cone. Stud11rd IIAZAIUI Cootamloant mi,/Klz mi,/Klz Ratio (2)

FACTOH (I) Benzolalovrenc 11.0 S.6 1.960

(CIIF) Arsenic (cll!lcer endpoinll 31.3 ' 21.0 1.490 (Ple.u an "X" next lo one below) Lea<! 476,0 400.0 1. 190 Dibenzlahlanlhracene 3,0 S.6 . 0.540 Slgolfiuot (Ir Total> 11111): Aluminum 17,800.0 75,000.0 0.240 Menaenese 1111d com1>0und! 748.0 3,100.0 0.240 Moderate (lrTolwl 2 - 100)1 X Vanadium 126.0 520.0 0.240 llenzolb\fluoranthenc 12.0 56.0 0.210 Minima I (If Toi al< 2): Calcium 4,450.0 23,000.0 0.190 Uenzfalanthraccne 10.0 56.0 0.180

(I) Evnlunlc for human contaminants only Total: 6.900 (2) Ralio ~ Maximum Conccnlration/Slandard Nole: Only top ten contaminants are displayed.

MIGRATION Evident - Analytical dala or observable evidence indicates that '

Con0ned- Information indicates a low potential for contamination to a (Plue an "X" next lo one below) PATHWAY contamination in the media Is present at, is moving polential point of exposure (could be due to lhe presence FACTOR coward, or has moved to a point of exposure of geological structures or or physical con1rols) Evident: (MrF)

Po,eollNI - Possibility for contaminalion to be present at or migrate PoteatfMI: to o poin1 of exposure; or information is not sufficien1 lo make a determinalion of Evidenl or Conlined Coo0oed: X

Brief R(11/t1naltfur Stltt:tlun:

(Place an "X" nex1 to one below) RECEPTOH hlrotllied • Receplors identified 1ha1 have access 10 sediment Llmlltd - Utile or no polenlial for receptors to have access to sediment !'ACTOR ldenlfncd: X (HF)

Potrollol: PotenllMI • Potential for receptors lo have acce,s to sediment

Llmlled:

Brit/ Ratlunale for Selection:

Activity Nam llEDFORD MA NWRIP Site Name: SITE00002 Sediment Human Category: Low (High, Medium, Low)

Ground Waler

CONTAMINANT Maximum Cone. Staadard HAZARD Contamloa111 u~/L uKIL Ratio(?) t"ACTOR(l) Dichloroethylene, 1,1• 2,800.0 4.6 608.700 (CHI') Trichloroelhvlene <TCEl 18,000.0 ' 160.0 112.S00 ( Plaeo an "X" noxl to one below)

Dichtoroelhi,lene, 1,2· (mixture) 1,200.0 55.0 21.820 Lead 19.S 4.0 . 19.880 Sign Incant (If Total> 100): X A rseuic (cancer endooinl) '62.4 4.S 13.870 Trichloroelhllle, I, I, 1 • iJ,200.0 790.0 11.650 Moderate (!!Told 2. 100): Calcium 102,000.0 11,000.0 9.270 Telrechloroethyleno (PCE) 940.0 110.0 8.550 Mlolmll (lfTot•I < 2): Benro[aJpyrene 2.0 0.92 2.170 Trichloroelhene, I, 1,2· 31.0 20.0 J.550

( l) Evaluate for human contaminants only Total: 816.730 (2) Ratio• Maximum Concentration/Standard Note: Only lop ten conwnln1111t.s are displayed.

MIGRATION E11ldeol - Analytical data or obser11able evidence indicates !hat Confloed- lnfonnation Indicates that the potential for (Place an "X" next to one below) PATHWAY con!nminalion in ll1e media is moving away from the source. contaminant migration from the source is limited (due to FACTOR geological structures or physical conl!ols) Evldebt: X (MPF)

PoleoOMI • Possibilily for contaminalion to be present at or migrate Potential: toe point of exposure; or infonnation is not sufficient 10 make a determination of Evident or Confined Coonned:

Brit/ Rat/unalt fur St/tct/11n: Shorl term remedial meuure will contain lbt migration of conlamloated grouadwaler.

RECEPTOR ldeotlfied • ll1ere is a U1rea1ened or potentially threatened water supply Lhnlled • There is no potentially threatened water supply well downgradient of (Place an "X" next to one below)

l'ACTOlt downgradient of the source. The GW (cont. or not) Is a currem the source. The groundwater is not considered a potential sour-e of ldeotlfiech X (ltl'J drinking water source or is equiv. to (Class I or IIA aquifer). OW or Is oflimiled benificlal u,e (IIIA, IIIB or perched aquifer).

Potential: Potet1tl1I- There is no potentially lhreatened water supply well downgradient

of the source. The groundwater is potentially unble for DW, Limited: irrig81ion or agricuhure, but not presently used {Class 11B aquifer).

Brief Rat/lJnalt for Stlec:t/oni Reglon1I aqulrer cf1111fied It Class I.

Activity Nam BEDFORD MA NWRIP Site Name: SITE00003 Groundwater Category; Hill!! (Hish, Medium, Low)

Soll

CONTAMINANT Mulmum Cone. S11ndard HAZARD ConlamlDIIII mo/Ka mll/Kll Rlltlo (2) FACTOk.(I) Arsenic (cancer cndp0inl) 17.3 21.0 0.820 (CIIF} Calcium 4,750.0 23,000.0 0 .210 (Place an "X" nexl to one below)

Aluminum 9,230.0 75,000.0 0.!20 Ce.dmium and comooW1ds 4.2 37.0 0.110 Slgnlnc.nl (UTolal > 100): Benz.olalnvrene · 0.45 5.6 0.080

Manganese and comDOuncl, 261.0 3,100.0 0.080 Modenue (lfTolal :z - 100)1 V1111adium 19.4 S20.0 0.040

Lead 8.J 400.0 0.020 Minima! (JfTolal < 2): X Dibenz[ ah l1111thracene 0.12 S.6 0.020 Benzofblfluoranll1ene 0.74 56.0 0.010

(I) Evaluate for hum1111 contaminants only Torah 1.580 (2) Ratio= Maximum Concentration/Standard Nole: Only top len contaminants 111e displayed.

MIGRATION Evldtnl - Analytical dale or observable evidence indicales thal Confined - ' Low possibility for contaminalion 10 be present at (Place an "X" next lo one below) PATHWAY contamination is present at, i, moving towards, or has or migrate lo a point of exposure

FACTOR moved to a point of exposure Evfdenl: (MPF)

Poleotlal - Possibility for contamination to be pment at or migrate Potential: X lo a point of exposure; or infonnllion is nol sufficlcnl 10 make a de!em1ina1ion of Evident or Connned Connned,

Brief Rationale for Sdectlon: Baaed on re1ul11 of groundwater and 10U an1 lysl,,

RECEPTOR ldeallned - Receptors Identified that hnve access lo Lfmlled- Little or no polcnlial for receplors lo havo access lo (Piece an "X" next lo one below)

FACTO/( contaminated soil con!aminared soil ldeartned, (Rt)

Poteal!al! X Polen Ila\- Polenlial for receptors lo have access lo

con1emina1ed soil Llmltedr

Brit/ Rat/,malt fe1r Stlti:tlun: Mlalm1I 1011 coolamlo11loa, IJroUnd cover provides adequate prolrclloa.

Actlvily Nam 8EDfORD MA NWRIP Site Name: SITE 00003 Soll Category: Low (High, Medium, Low)

Surface Waler Human

CONTAMINANT M•limum Cone. Sl•aclnd IIAZARI> Conl•mlaaDI ug/1, u2/L Rado (2)

fACTOR(I) Calcium 11,700.0 11,000.0 l.060 (CIIF} Cadmium 811d comPOund, 6,J 18.0 0.350 (Place an "X" ne11110 one below}

Manganese and comoounds 164.0 1,700.0 0.100 llarium and compounds S3.3 2,600.0 0.020 Slgollkaal (IfTot~l > JOO): Copp~r and compounds 12. l 1,400.0 0.010 Aluminum 432 .0 37,000.0 0.010 Moderate (lrTorat 2- 100): Zinc 42.5 I 1,000.0

Minimal (If TorAI < ?): X

(I) Eveluale for human C()ntaminants only Total: !.550 (2) Ralio = Maximum Concen1ra1ion/S1andard Nore: Only lop ten contaminants are displayed.

'

MIGRATION IMdeal· Analytical data or observable evidence indicates that Coanned - lnfonnation indicatM a low polential for con1e1nination (Place an "X" next 10 one below) PATHWAY contan1ine1ion in lhe media Is presenl at, is moving to a po1ential poinl of 011posuro (could by due to lhe FACTOR 1oward, or hes moved 10 a poinl of exposure presence of geological structures or physical controls) Evldeol: (MPF)

Polenllol • Possibility for contamina1ion to be presenr at or migrate Potential: X to a point of exposure: or infonnetion is not sufficient to make a dcterminelion of Evident or Confined ConHned:

81/ef Rallvna/., fur Stft,://un: BPSed on rt,ul11 of groundwalcr aulysl.s, lncludlog aurface water and ,..ti men 11.

RF.CF.PTOR Jdentined - Receptors identified that have access lo surface waler Lfmlled • Little or no potential for receplors to have 11Cccss to (Piece an "X" next 10 one below)

l'i\CTOR surface water fdenllned~ (RF)

l'olcnllal: 'x Polrnllal • Potential for receptors to have access lo surfaC(I waler

Limited:

Brief Rationale for Stfedlon: Down gradient wetland, ldenllRed wllb rec!epton.

Activity Nam BEDFORD MA NWRIP Site Name: SITE 00003 Surface Water Human Category: Low (High, Medium, Low)

surrace waler t:co t<·ruh

CONTAMINANT Madmum Coac. St•od1rd HAZARD Con11ml11an1 uo/1 uo/1 Rallo(l) FACTOR (l} Cadmium wid comoounds 6.3 J.I S.730 (CHF) Conner and comooumls 12.1 12.0 1.010 (Place an "X" next to one below)

Zinc 42.S 110.0 0.390 Aluminum 432.0 Slgnlfiaiot (Ir Total> 100): Barium and compounds · 53.3

Moderale (If Total 2 - IOO)i X

Mlnlmal (If Total< 2):

(I) E~aluatc for human contaminant$ only Total: 7.120 (2) Ratio: Maximum Concentratio11/Sllllld11rd Note: Only top ten contaminllltl.S nre displayed.

-MIGRATION Evident - Analytical data or observable evidence indicates that Confined - Information Indicates a low potentiol for contamination (Plru:c an "X" next lo one below) rAl'IIWAV contamination in the media is present at, is moving 10 a potential point of expo,Uie (could be due to the

FACTOR toward, or hns moved to a point of exposure presenco of geological 1tructures or physical controls) Evident: X (MPF)

PottollAI - Possibility for contaminalion lo be present at or migrate Potenllal: to a point or exposure; or information Is not suffic.ient to make a detem1ination or Evident or Confined CoDRntd:

Brief Rallonalt for Selutlon: Analytk1l data lndlcales lbal co111aml111tlon l.!J present and movlne toward • rc<:tptor,

RECEPTOR Jdenllfitd • Receplors identified 0iat have access 10 surrace water (Place an "X" next to one below)

Limited - Little or no potentie.l for receptors to have access to

FACTOR surface water Identified: (HF)

' Porentlal: Potcntlvl • l'olentinl for receptors to have access to surface water

Limited: X

Brit/ Raf/unaft for Stltd/1111: Tb ere l.!J a porenllal (or receptors that bAve access to 1urr1ce water,

Activity Nam BEDFORD MA NWRIP Site Name: S!TEOOOOJ Surface Water Fresh Category: Med (High, Medium, Low)

.:icwmenl Humao

CONTAMINANT Maximum Cone. Standard HAZARD CoDlamloaisl m,r/Kl! m!!IK2 Ratio (2) FACTOR (I) Benzo(alovrene 2.0 5.6 0.360 (CIIF) Auenic {cancer endooint) 4.8 21.0 0.230 (Place an "X" naKl to one below)

Lead 70.3 400.0 0.180 Calcium 3,040.0 23,000.0 0.130 Slgolfic.tnl (If Total> 100): Aluminum 8,300.0 75,000.0 0.1 10 Benzo[b\Ouoranlhene 2.7 56.0 0.050 Moderate (If Total 2 -100): Dibenzl ahlanthraceno 0.3 5.6 0.050 ManRanese and compounds 134.0 3,100.0 0.040 Minima( (lfTot11I < 2): X Vanadium 18.6 520.0 0.040 Btnzl a\1111thracene 1.8 56.0 0.030

( l) Evaluate for human contaminants only Total: 1.280 (2) Ratio c Maximum Concentration/Standard Note: Only top ten contaminants are displayed.

'

MIGRATION EvldePI. Analytical dal& or observable evidence indicates that Co110oed • lnfonnatlon indicates a low potenlfw for contamination to a (Place an "X" next lo one b!:law) PATHWAY comaminalion in the media is present at, is moving potential point of exposure (could be due to the presence

FACTOR toward, or has moved to a point of e~posure of geological struclures or or physical controls) £video!: (MPFJ

Poteollal • Possibility for contamination to be present at or migrale Poleallal: X to a point of exposure; or Information is not sumcient to make a determination of Evident or Confined Coonned:

Brief Rollunolt frJr SekctlrJn:

(Place an "X" next to one below) RECEPTOR ldeollnNI - Receptors identified that have access to sediment Llmlttd • Little or no potential for receptors to have 11Ccess to sediment

FACTOR ldeDllntd: (IU)

Pottnllal: ,x Potentlal • Potential for receptors to have access to sediment

Llmllcd:

Brief Rationale for Sdedlon:

Activity Nam BEDFORD MA NWRIP Site Name: SITE00003 Sediment Human Category: Low Hligh, Medium, Low)

>c

Ground Water

CONTAMINANT Mulmum Cont,. Standard HAZARD Contamloanl UII/L ua/L Rallo(21 FACTOR (I) Toluene 49,000.0 720.0 68.060 (CIIF) Xylene /mixed) 40,000.0 . 1,400.0 28.570 (Plsce 1111 "X" noxt to one below)

SlgnlOcant (If Total> 100)1

Moderate (HTotal 2. 100): X

Minimal (fr Total< 2):

(I) Evaluate for human contaminanl.5 only Total: 96.630

(2) Ratio= Maximum Concenlration/Standard Note: Only lop ten contaminants are displayed.

MIGRATION EYldu1t • Analytical data or obseNable evidence Indicates that Confined:.· lnforma!lon indicate, that tho potential for (Place an "X" next 10 one below) l'ATHWAY contamination in the media is moving away from the source. contaminant migration from the sour~ is limited (due to

FACTOII. geologlcal structures or physical controls) EYlde1111 X (MPF)

Potcoll»I- Possibility for contamination to be present at or migrate Potenrlal: 10 a point of exposure; or information is not sufficient lo make a determino1iun of Evident or Confined Confined:

Brief Rationale for Selection: Baaed on resulls of ground waler and soll,

RECEPTOR ldentlflcd • There is a threatened or potentially threatened water supply Limited· There is no potentially threatened water supply well downgndient of ( Place an "X" next 10 one below)

FACTOR downgradient of the source. The GW (cont. or not) ls a current the source. The groundwater is not considered a potential source of ldenllRed: (RF} drinking water source or is equiv. to (Class I or IIA aquifer). OW or is of limited benilicial use (IIIA, 111B or perched aquifer).

' PoteoUal: X PoteotM- TI1erc is no polentielly threetened waler supply well downgradienl

of the source. The groundwater ls potentially usable for DW, Umlled: irrigation or agriculture, but not presently used (Class 118 aquirer).

Brief Ratlunale fur Sdtcllun: Regloaal aqulrer c!ualned •• ClaH I.

Activity Nam BEDFORD MA NWRIP Site Name: SITE00004 Groundwater Category: His!! (High, Medium, Low)

APPENDIX C SCHEDULES

ID Task Name %Complete

Duration Start Actual Start Finish Actual Finish

1 Land Use Control Annual Inspection - Sites 3, 4, and SFTA 83% 1087 days Mon 9/1/14 Mon 9/1/14 Tue 10/30/18 NA2 LUC Annual Inspection (2014) Sites 3, 4, SFTA 100% 60 days Mon 9/1/14 Mon 9/1/14 Fri 11/21/14 Fri 11/21/146 LUC Annual Inspection (2015) Sites 3, 4, SFTA 100% 22 days Thu 9/17/15 Thu 9/17/15 Fri 10/16/15 Fri 10/16/1510 LUC Annual Inspection (2016) Sites 3, 4, SFTA 100% 92 days Thu 6/23/16 Thu 6/23/16 Sat 10/29/16 Sat 10/29/1614 LUC Annual Inspection (2017) Sites 3 and 4 1% 28 days Wed 9/13/17 Wed 9/13/17 Mon 10/23/17 NA15 Conduct LUC Inspection 100% 0.38 edays Wed 9/13/17 Wed 9/13/17 Wed 9/13/17 Wed 9/13/1716 Prepare Internal Draft LUC Inspection Report 0% 20 edays Mon 9/18/17 Mon 9/18/17 Sun 10/8/17 NA17 Revise and Submit LUC Inspection Report 0% 15 edays Sun 10/8/17 NA Mon 10/23/17 NA18 LUC Annual Inspection (2018) Sites 3 and 4 0% 41 days Tue 9/4/18 NA Tue 10/30/18 NA19 Conduct LUC Inspection 0% 19 days Tue 9/4/18 NA Fri 9/28/18 NA20 Prepare Internal Draft LUC Inspection Report 0% 10 days Mon 10/1/18 NA Fri 10/12/18 NA21 Revise and Submit LUC Inspection Report 0% 12 days Mon 10/15/18 NA Tue 10/30/18 NA22 Obtain Easement for Utility (Driveway) Parcel 100% 554 days Tue 1/1/13 Tue 1/1/13 Fri 2/13/15 Fri 2/13/1526 Obtain Easement for North/Northeast (Parcel B) 0% 260 days Mon 1/2/17 NA Fri 12/29/17 NA27 Proposed Easement Plans 0% 195 days Mon 1/2/17 NA Fri 9/29/17 NA28 Submit Proposed Easement Plans 0% 0 days Fri 9/29/17 NA Fri 9/29/17 NA29 Final Easement 0% 65 days Mon 10/2/17 NA Fri 12/29/17 NA30 First 5-Year Review (for all of NWIRP Bedford) 100% 302 days Thu 8/1/13 Thu 8/1/13 Fri 9/26/14 Fri 9/26/1443 Second 5-Year Review (for all of NWIRP Bedford) 0% 280 days Mon 9/3/18 NA Fri 9/27/19 NA44 Initiate 5-Year Review 0% 365 edays Mon 9/3/18 NA Tue 9/3/19 NA45 Issue Final (NLT 9/28/2019) 0% 0 days Fri 9/27/19 NA Fri 9/27/19 NA46 Facility Wide Long Term Monitoring / OM&M Plan 0% 201 days Wed 11/1/17 NA Wed 8/8/18 NA47 Internal Draft LTM / OMM 0% 60 days Wed 11/1/17 NA Tue 1/23/18 NA48 Draft LTM / OMM 0% 30 days Wed 1/24/18 NA Tue 3/6/18 NA49 Draft Submittal 0% 0 days Tue 3/6/18 NA Tue 3/6/18 NA50 Regulator Review 0% 45 days Wed 3/7/18 NA Tue 5/8/18 NA51 Responses to Comments 0% 30 days Wed 5/9/18 NA Tue 6/19/18 NA52 Draft Final Report 0% 21 days Wed 6/20/18 NA Wed 7/18/18 NA53 Draft Final Report Submittal 0% 0 days Wed 7/18/18 NA Wed 7/18/18 NA54 Final Report 0% 15 days Thu 7/19/18 NA Wed 8/8/18 NA55 Emerging Contaminant Groundwater Investigation - Site 3 and SFTA 60% 1248 days Tue 8/5/14 Tue 8/5/14 Thu 5/16/19 NA56 PFC and 1,4-Dioxane SAP 100% 69 days Tue 8/5/14 Tue 8/5/14 Fri 11/7/14 Fri 11/7/1466 Groundwater Sampling - Site 3 and SFTA 100% 55 days Mon 11/10/14 Mon 11/10/14 Fri 1/23/15 Fri 1/23/1571 Emerging Contaminant Investigation Report - Site 3 and SFTA 100% 286 days Fri 1/23/15 Fri 1/23/15 Sat 2/27/16 Sat 2/27/1680 1,4-Dioxane Delineation Sampling - Site 3 (See Separate Site 3

Schedule)0% 490 days Fri 6/30/17 NA Thu 5/16/19 NA

81 PFC Preliminary Assessment - Main Parcel 0% 166 days Mon 7/3/17 NA Mon 2/19/18 NA82 Planning for Preliminary Assessment 0% 60 days Mon 7/3/17 NA Fri 9/22/17 NA83 Conduct Preliminary Assessment 0% 60 edays Fri 9/22/17 NA Tue 11/21/17 NA84 Draft Report 0% 60 edays Tue 11/21/17 NA Sat 1/20/18 NA85 Final Report 0% 30 edays Sat 1/20/18 NA Mon 2/19/18 NA86 Facility Wide Environmental Condition of Property (ECP) - Site 3 and 4

(Northern Parcel)0% 109 days Tue 5/1/18 NA Fri 9/28/18 NA

87 ECP Field Work 0% 18.38 edays Tue 5/1/18 NA Sat 5/19/18 NA88 Internal Draft ECP 0% 60 days Mon 5/21/18 NA Fri 8/10/18 NA89 Draft ECP 0% 15 days Mon 8/13/18 NA Fri 8/31/18 NA90 Final ECP 0% 20 days Mon 9/3/18 NA Fri 9/28/18 NA91 Preliminary Closeout Report (PCOR) for NWIRP 100% 86 days Mon 12/1/14 Mon 12/1/14 Mon 3/30/15 Mon 3/30/15

Land Use Control Annual Inspection - Sites 3, 4, and SFTALUC Annual Inspection (2014) Sites 3, 4, SFTA

LUC Annual Inspection (2015) Sites 3, 4, SFTALUC Annual Inspection (2016) Sites 3, 4, SFTA

LUC Annual Inspection (2017) Sites 3 and 4

Obtain Easement for Utility (Driveway) ParcelObtain Easement for North/Northeast (Parcel B)

9/29

First 5-Year Review (for all of NWIRP Bedford)Second 5-Year Review (for all of NWIRP Bedford)

9/27Facility Wide Long Term Monitoring / OM&M Plan

3/6

7/18

Emerging Contaminant Groundwater Investigation - Site 3 and SFTAPFC and 1,4-Dioxane SAP

Groundwater Sampling - Site 3 and SFTAEmerging Contaminant Investigation Report - Site 3 and SFTA

1,4-Dioxane Delineation Sampling - Site 3 (See Separate Site 3 Schedule)

PFC Preliminary Assessment - Main Parcel

Facility Wide Environmental Condition of Property (ECP) - Site 3 and 4 (Northern Parcel)

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Task

Split

Milestone

Summary

Rolled Up Task

Rolled Up Split

Rolled Up Milestone

Rolled Up Progress

External Tasks

Project Summary

External Milestone

External Milestone

Inactive Task

Inactive Task

Inactive Milestone

Inactive Summary

Manual Task

Duration-only

Manual Summary Rollup

Manual Summary

Start-only

Finish-only

Progress

Deadline

FACILITY WIDE SCHEDULENWIRP BEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS

blue text = completed, NA = not available, duration = working days Page 1 of 1

Project: Facility Wide ScheduleOverall Activities and ReportingDate: Mon 9/25/17

4 --! -1 -1 -I ~ ---+-- -I

_J_

'''''''''''''''''''''

• 0

-

~ --I

r.::

• • -

-,I

' ' ' - ' ' '

.. ' ' ' ' ~

:

0

-

.

T

- -

' ' ' ' ' .....

' '

, :

0 T ' ' .

!~ \ ..

: '

'

-I ' ' ' '

.. : ' ' ' '

-r-.+.. · ! i ! _______ ~_·_,,_,.,.,_.,.,.,_.,.,._· .. ,.,._,.,.,_.,.,_,. _,,~::'':''':_ ___ _;_ ! _______ _

[

l


Duration Start Actual Start Finish Actual Finish Predecessors

1 Interim Remedial Action (IRA) Groundwater Monitoring 100% 3920 days Wed 1/1/97 Wed 1/1/97 Mon 2/28/11 Mon 2/28/11102 RI Phase II Report (All Operable Units) 100% 106 days Fri 4/28/00 Fri 4/28/00 Fri 9/22/00 Fri 9/22/00103 Draft Feasibility Study 100% 426 days Mon 7/31/00 Mon 7/31/00 Tue 10/16/01 Tue 10/16/01104 Source Area Pilot Study (In-Situ Thermal Treatment) 100% 1650 days Fri 6/21/02 Fri 6/21/02 Tue 8/12/08 Tue 8/12/08116 Components Laboratory Evaluation 100% 2417 days Fri 4/28/00 Fri 4/28/00 Fri 9/19/08 Fri 9/19/08132 Source Area Inv. and ERH Constructability Evaluation 100% 1240 days Mon 12/15/03 Mon 12/15/03 Fri 9/12/08 Fri 9/12/08145 Bedrock Sampling (2005-2008) 100% 864 days Mon 10/3/05 Mon 10/3/05 Thu 1/22/09 Thu 1/22/09156 Revised Feasibility Study (FS) 100% 1252 days Mon 9/12/05 Mon 9/12/05 Tue 6/29/10 Tue 6/29/10195 Proposed Plan (PRAP) 100% 82 days Thu 4/22/10 Thu 4/22/10 Fri 8/13/10 Fri 8/13/10203 Record of Decision (ROD) 100% 91 days Wed 5/26/10 Wed 5/26/10 Wed 9/29/10 Wed 9/29/10212 RD Schedule, Deliverables List, RA Work Plan Date 100% 56 days Fri 6/11/10 Fri 6/11/10 Mon 8/30/10 Mon 8/30/10216 Remedial Design (RD) 100% 777 days Mon 3/2/09 Mon 3/2/09 Tue 2/21/12 Tue 2/21/12256 Remedial Action (RA) 93% 3407 days Tue 2/1/11 Tue 2/1/11 Mon 2/19/24 NA257 Award RAC Contract 100% 86 days Tue 2/1/11 Tue 2/1/11 Tue 5/31/11 Tue 5/31/11258 Source Area Treatment 100% 1076 days Tue 5/17/11 Tue 5/17/11 Tue 6/30/15 Tue 6/30/15313 Substrate Injection (2nd Set) 39% 279 days Wed 5/24/17 Wed 5/24/17 Thu 6/14/18 NA314 Substrate Injection 75% 158 days Wed 5/24/17 Wed 5/24/17 Fri 12/29/17 NA315 Final Updated O&M Manual and Turnover Book 0% 24 days Mon 1/1/18 NA Wed 1/31/18 NA 314316 Operation and Maintenance Report 0% 120 days Tue 1/2/18 NA Thu 6/14/18 NA317 Prepare Internal Draft 0% 24 days Tue 1/2/18 NA Thu 2/1/18 NA318 Navy Review 0% 20 days Fri 2/2/18 NA Thu 3/1/18 NA 317319 Prepare Draft Final 0% 10 days Fri 3/2/18 NA Thu 3/15/18 NA 318320 Regulator Review 0% 32 days Fri 3/16/18 NA Mon 4/30/18 NA 319321 Prepare Final 0% 34 days Tue 5/1/18 NA Thu 6/14/18 NA 320322 Submit Final Report 0% 0 days Thu 6/14/18 NA Thu 6/14/18 NA 321323 Groundwater Extraction and Treatment System Reports 99% 2351 days Wed 2/18/15 Wed 2/18/15 Mon 2/19/24 NA324 Monthly Operations Reports 99% 502 days Thu 6/8/17 Thu 6/8/17 Wed 5/8/19 NA349 Annual Operations Report 99% 2351 days Wed 2/18/15 Wed 2/18/15 Mon 2/19/24 NA360 Groundwater Monitoring (shown through 2018) 93% 2009 days Mon 3/21/11 Mon 3/21/11 Mon 11/26/18 NA361 Round 1 (Spring 2011) 100% 111 days Mon 3/21/11 Mon 3/21/11 Mon 8/22/11 Mon 8/22/11369 Round 2 (Fall 2011) 100% 129 days Mon 11/14/11 Mon 11/14/11 Thu 5/10/12 Thu 5/10/12377 Update SAP 100% 47 days Tue 1/17/12 Tue 1/17/12 Wed 3/21/12 Wed 3/21/12378 Round 3 (Spring 2012) through Round 10 (Fall 2015) 100% 1007 days Thu 3/22/12 Thu 3/22/12 Fri 1/29/16 Fri 1/29/16379 2012 Annual Report (Sites 3 & 4) 100% 144 days Tue 7/16/13 Tue 7/16/13 Fri 1/31/14 Fri 1/31/14380 2013 through 2014 Annual Reports (Sites 3 & 4 & SFTA) 100% 470 days Wed 1/1/14 Wed 1/1/14 Tue 10/20/15 Tue 10/20/15381 2015 Annual Report (Sites 3 & 4 & SFTA) 100% 120 days Fri 1/1/16 Fri 1/1/16 Thu 6/16/16 Thu 6/16/16382 Round 11 (Spring 2016) 100% 100 days Mon 3/21/16 Mon 3/21/16 Fri 8/5/16 Fri 8/5/16386 Round 12 (Fall 2016) 100% 96 days Mon 9/19/16 Mon 9/19/16 Mon 1/30/17 Mon 1/30/17390 2016 Annual Report (Sites 3 & 4 & SFTA) 100% 120 days Mon 1/2/17 Mon 1/2/17 Fri 6/16/17 Fri 6/16/17391 Round 13 (Spring 2017) 100% 54 days Mon 3/20/17 Mon 3/20/17 Thu 6/1/17 Thu 6/1/17395 Round 14 (Fall 2017) 4% 55 days Mon 9/18/17 Mon 9/18/17 Fri 12/1/17 NA396 Perform Groundwater Monitoring 100% 2 days Mon 9/18/17 Mon 9/18/17 Tue 9/19/17 Tue 9/19/17397 Prepare Report 0% 50 days Mon 9/25/17 Mon 9/25/17 Fri 12/1/17 NA 396398 Submit Report 0% 0 days Fri 12/1/17 NA Fri 12/1/17 NA 397399 Round 15 (Spring 2018) 0% 62 days Mon 3/12/18 NA Mon 6/4/18 NA400 Perform Groundwater Monitoring 0% 7 days Mon 3/12/18 NA Tue 3/20/18 NA401 Prepare Report 0% 55 days Wed 3/21/18 NA Mon 6/4/18 NA 400402 Submit Report 0% 0 days Mon 6/4/18 NA Mon 6/4/18 NA 401403 Round 16 (Fall 2018) 0% 60 days Tue 9/4/18 NA Mon 11/26/18 NA404 Perform Groundwater Monitoring 0% 10 days Tue 9/4/18 NA Mon 9/17/18 NA405 Prepare Report 0% 50 days Tue 9/18/18 NA Mon 11/26/18 NA 404406 Submit Report 0% 0 days Mon 11/26/18 NA Mon 11/26/18 NA 405407 1,4 Dioxane Groundwater Investigation 53% 1234 days Mon 9/1/14 Mon 9/1/14 Mon 5/20/19 NA408 Initial 1,4 Dioxane Sampling 100% 371 days Mon 9/1/14 Mon 9/1/14 Mon 2/1/16 Mon 2/1/16415 Delineation Sampling 100% 218 days Fri 5/1/15 Fri 5/1/15 Tue 3/1/16 Tue 3/1/16423 1,4 Dioxane Evaluation 0% 150 days Thu 6/1/17 NA Wed 12/27/17 NA424 HHRA / Risk Evaluation / Protectiveness 0% 90 days Thu 6/1/17 NA Wed 10/4/17 NA425 Develop path for further evaluation / updates / assessment 0% 60 days Thu 10/5/17 NA Wed 12/27/17 NA 424426 Groundwater Plume Expansion/Delineation and Plume

Treatment/Containment14% 495 days Fri 6/30/17 Fri 6/30/17 Mon 5/20/19 NA

427 Prepare Internal Draft Work Plan 100% 59 days Fri 6/30/17 Fri 6/30/17 Wed 9/20/17 Wed 9/20/17428 Submit Internal Draft Work Plan 100% 3 days Wed 9/20/17 Wed 9/20/17 Fri 9/22/17 Fri 9/22/17 427429 Navy Review 0% 15 days Thu 9/21/17 Thu 9/21/17 Fri 10/13/17 NA 428430 Prepare Draft Work Plan 0% 20 days Mon 10/16/17 NA Fri 11/10/17 NA 429431 Submit Draft Work Plan 0% 0 days Fri 11/10/17 NA Fri 11/10/17 NA 430432 Regulator Review 0% 30 days Mon 11/13/17 NA Fri 12/22/17 NA 431433 Response to Comments 0% 20 days Mon 12/25/17 NA Fri 1/19/18 NA 432

Source Area TreatmentSubstrate Injection (2nd Set)

6/14

Groundwater Monitoring (shown through 2018)

2013 through 2014 Annual Reports (Sites 3 & 4 & SFTA)2015 Annual Report (Sites 3 & 4 & SFTA)

Round 11 (Spring 2016)Round 12 (Fall 2016)

2016 Annual Report (Sites 3 & 4 & SFTA)Round 13 (Spring 2017)

Round 14 (Fall 2017)

12/1

6/4

11/261,4 Dioxane Groundwater Investigation

Initial 1,4 Dioxane SamplingDelineation Sampling

1,4 Dioxane Evaluation

11/10

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Task

Split

Milestone

Summary

Rolled Up Task

Rolled Up Split

Rolled Up Milestone

Rolled Up Progress

External Tasks

Project Summary

External Milestone

External Milestone

Inactive Task

Inactive Task

Inactive Milestone

Inactive Summary

Manual Task

Duration-only


Manual Summary

Start-only

Finish-only

Progress

Deadline

SITE 3 (CHLORINATED SOLVENT GROUNDWATER PLUME) SCHEDULENWIRP BEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS


Project: Site 3 Chlorinated SolventGroundwater PlumeDate: Mon 9/25/17

I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I

• • • .

I

.

. ; . ' ' '

I

.

. . .

.

.

.

.

.

I I

.

' . ~

' I I 1 000000000000000000000

.

.

.. ' ~

. ; ' ' '

C ]

<> <> .

.

~ . . .

.


Duration Start Actual Start Finish Actual Finish Predecessors

434 Prepare Draft Final Work Plan 0% 20 days Sat 1/20/18 NA Thu 2/15/18 NA 433435 Submit Draft Final Work Plan 0% 0 days Thu 2/15/18 NA Thu 2/15/18 NA 434436 Regulator Review/Concurrence 0% 20 days Fri 2/16/18 NA Thu 3/15/18 NA 435437 Prepare Final Work Plan 0% 20 days Fri 3/16/18 NA Thu 4/12/18 NA 436438 Submit Final Work Plan 0% 0 days Thu 4/12/18 NA Thu 4/12/18 NA 437439 1st Round Field Work 0% 20 days Thu 6/14/18 NA Wed 7/11/18 NA 438FS+45 days440 2nd Round Field Work 0% 14 days Thu 8/2/18 NA Tue 8/21/18 NA 439FS+15 days441 Groundwater Modeling 0% 30 days Wed 8/22/18 NA Mon 10/1/18 NA 440442 Prepare Internal Draft Report 0% 20 days Tue 10/2/18 NA Mon 10/29/18 NA 441443 Submit Internal Draft Work Plan 0% 0 days Mon 10/29/18 NA Mon 10/29/18 NA 442444 Navy Review 0% 15 days Tue 10/30/18 NA Mon 11/19/18 NA 443445 Prepae Draft Report 0% 20 days Tue 11/20/18 NA Mon 12/17/18 NA 444446 Submit Draft Report 0% 0 days Mon 12/17/18 NA Mon 12/17/18 NA 445447 Regulator Review 0% 30 days Tue 12/18/18 NA Mon 1/28/19 NA 446448 Response to Comments 0% 20 days Tue 1/29/19 NA Mon 2/25/19 NA 447449 Prepare Draft Final Report 0% 20 days Tue 2/26/19 NA Mon 3/25/19 NA 448450 Submit Draft Final Report 0% 0 days Mon 3/25/19 NA Mon 3/25/19 NA 449451 Regulator Review/Concurrence 0% 20 days Tue 3/26/19 NA Mon 4/22/19 NA 450452 Prepare Final Report 0% 20 days Tue 4/23/19 NA Mon 5/20/19 NA 451453 Submit Final Report 0% 0 days Mon 5/20/19 NA Mon 5/20/19 NA 452454 GWETS Treatability 76% 733 days Fri 5/15/15 Fri 5/15/15 Mon 3/5/18 NA455 Internal Draft Work Plan 100% 35 days Fri 5/15/15 Fri 5/15/15 Thu 7/2/15 Thu 7/2/15456 Draft Work Plan 100% 99 days Thu 7/16/15 Thu 7/16/15 Tue 12/1/15 Tue 12/1/15 455457 Final Work Plan 100% 20 days Tue 3/1/16 Tue 3/1/16 Mon 3/28/16 Mon 3/28/16 456458 Sample Collection and Treability Testing 100% 30 days Mon 4/4/16 Mon 4/4/16 Fri 5/13/16 Fri 5/13/16 457459 Data Reduction / Initial Evaluation 100% 75 days Mon 5/16/16 Mon 5/16/16 Fri 8/26/16 Fri 8/26/16 458460 2nd Round / Optimize Treatability Testing 100% 60 days Thu 9/1/16 Thu 9/1/16 Wed 11/23/16 Wed 11/23/16 459461 Internal Draft Report 100% 179 days Thu 11/24/16 Thu 11/24/16 Tue 8/1/17 Tue 8/1/17 460462 Navy Review 0% 65 days Wed 8/2/17 NA Tue 10/31/17 NA 461463 Draft Report 0% 30 days Wed 11/1/17 NA Tue 12/12/17 NA 462464 Regulator Review 0% 30 days Wed 12/13/17 NA Mon 1/22/18 NA 463465 Final Report 0% 30 days Tue 1/23/18 NA Mon 3/5/18 NA 464466 GWETS Modification Implementation 0% 270 days Mon 4/2/18 NA Wed 4/10/19 NA467 Treatment System Evaluation 0% 30 days Mon 4/2/18 NA Fri 5/11/18 NA 460468 System Modification Design 0% 30 days Mon 5/14/18 NA Thu 6/21/18 NA 467469 System Modification 0% 90 days Fri 6/22/18 NA Wed 10/24/18 NA 468470 Operational Testing and Optimization 0% 90 days Thu 10/25/18 NA Wed 2/27/19 NA 469471 Construction Report 0% 30 days Thu 2/28/19 NA Wed 4/10/19 NA 470472 Discrete-Interval Groundwater Sampling 100% 276 days Sat 11/1/14 Sat 11/1/14 Tue 11/24/15 Tue 11/24/15478 Supplemental Soil Sampling for HHRA - Residential Scenario 100% 325 days Sat 11/1/14 Sat 11/1/14 Fri 1/29/16 Fri 1/29/16485 OPS / IRACR - Site 3 0% 178 days Sat 1/20/18 NA Fri 9/21/18 NA486 Internal Draft OPS / IRACR 0% 76 days Sat 1/20/18 NA Fri 5/4/18 NA487 Draft OPS/ IRACR 0% 18 days Thu 5/10/18 NA Sun 6/3/18 NA 486488 Draft Submittal 0% 0 days Sun 6/3/18 NA Sun 6/3/18 NA 487489 Regulator Review 0% 20 days Thu 6/21/18 NA Wed 7/18/18 NA 488490 Response to Comments 0% 20 days Mon 7/23/18 NA Fri 8/17/18 NA 489491 Draft Final Report 0% 11 days Mon 8/20/18 NA Sat 9/1/18 NA 490492 Draft Final Report Submittal 0% 0 days Sat 9/1/18 NA Sat 9/1/18 NA 491493 Final Report 0% 15 days Mon 9/3/18 NA Fri 9/21/18 NA 492

2/15

4/12

10/29

12/17

3/25

5/20GWETS Treatability

GWETS Modification Implementation

Discrete-Interval Groundwater SamplingSupplemental Soil Sampling for HHRA - Residential Scenario

6/3

9/1

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Task

Split

Milestone

Summary

Rolled Up Task

Rolled Up Split

Rolled Up Milestone

Rolled Up Progress

External Tasks

Project Summary

External Milestone

External Milestone

Inactive Task

Inactive Task

Inactive Milestone

Inactive Summary

Manual Task

Duration-only


Manual Summary

Start-only

Finish-only

Progress

Deadline

SITE 3 (CHLORINATED SOLVENT GROUNDWATER PLUME) SCHEDULENWIRP BEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS


Project: Site 3 Chlorinated SolventGroundwater PlumeDate: Mon 9/25/17

J J J ~ ~ ..J ~

'

'

'

'

' -'

• -

~ ~ ~ ~

'''''''''''''''''''''

<>

~ ~

• •

..

..J

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' ' '

..J

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

' ' J ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' --; --;

' '

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

-• - -

' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

;/II'.

-~ : -' ' ' ' ' ' '

C ]

~ -'

-



1 RI Phase II Report (All Operable Units) 100% 106 days Fri 4/28/00 Fri 4/28/00 Fri 9/22/00 Fri 9/22/002 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 100% 2091 days Sat 4/7/01 Sat 4/7/01 Wed 8/13/08 Wed 8/13/08

11 Supplemental Sampling Event 100% 271 days Mon 8/13/12 Mon 8/13/12 Mon 8/26/13 Mon 8/26/1341 Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD) 100% 248 days Wed 4/3/13 Wed 4/3/13 Fri 3/14/14 Fri 3/14/1460 Land Use Control Remedial Design (LUC RD) 100% 328 days Tue 10/1/13 Tue 10/1/13 Thu 1/1/15 Thu 1/1/1573 Groundwater Monitoring (shown through 2018) 95% 4069 days Fri 11/8/02 Fri 11/8/02 Thu 5/31/18 NA74 Round 1 (Nov. 2002) through Round 17 (Mar. 2011) 100% 2298 days Fri 11/8/02 Fri 11/8/02 Fri 8/19/11 Fri 8/19/1175 Update SAP (see Sites 3, 4) 100% 472 days Wed 1/20/10 Wed 1/20/10 Thu 11/10/11 Thu 11/10/1176 Round 18 (Nov. 2011) through Round 22 (Fall 2013) 100% 549 days Mon 11/14/11 Mon 11/14/11 Thu 12/19/13 Thu 12/19/1377 Update SAP 100% 55 days Mon 8/13/12 Mon 8/13/12 Fri 10/26/12 Fri 10/26/1278 Update SAP per ESD 100% 13 days Mon 2/24/14 Mon 2/24/14 Wed 3/12/14 Wed 3/12/1480 Round 23 (Spring 2014) through Round 26 (Fall

2015)100% 485 days Mon 3/24/14 Mon 3/24/14 Fri 1/29/16 Fri 1/29/16

81 Round 27 (Spring 2016) 100% 60 days Mon 3/21/16 Mon 3/21/16 Fri 6/10/16 Fri 6/10/1685 Round 28 (Fall 2016) 100% 93 days Mon 9/19/16 Mon 9/19/16 Wed 1/25/17 Wed 1/25/1789 Round 29 (Spring 2017) 100% 37 days Mon 3/6/17 Mon 3/6/17 Tue 4/25/17 Tue 4/25/1793 Round 30 (Fall 2017) 3% 67 days Tue 9/12/17 Tue 9/12/17 Tue 12/12/17 NA94 Perform Groundwater Monitoring 100% 2 days Tue 9/12/17 Tue 9/12/17 Wed 9/13/17 Wed 9/13/1795 Prepare Report 0% 65 days Thu 9/14/17 NA Tue 12/12/17 NA96 Submit Report 0% 0 days Tue 12/12/17 NA Tue 12/12/17 NA97 Round 31 (Spring 2018) 0% 63 days Tue 3/6/18 NA Thu 5/31/18 NA98 Perform Groundwater Monitoring 0% 19 days Tue 3/6/18 NA Fri 3/30/18 NA99 Prepare Report 0% 44 days Mon 4/2/18 NA Thu 5/31/18 NA

100 Submit Report 0% 0 days Thu 5/31/18 NA Thu 5/31/18 NA101 Round 32 (Fall 2018) 0% 85 days Wed 9/6/17 NA Sun 12/31/17 NA102 Perform Groundwater Monitoring 0% 19 days Wed 9/6/17 NA Sat 9/30/17 NA103 Prepare Report 0% 65 days Tue 10/3/17 NA Sun 12/31/17 NA104 Submit Report 0% 0 days Sun 12/31/17 NA Sun 12/31/17 NA105 Property Transfer (See Separate SFTA Property

Transfer Schedule)0% 757 days Wed 1/14/15 NA Wed 12/6/17 NA

Groundwater Monitoring (shown through 2018)



12/12Round 31 (Spring 2018)

5/31Round 32 (Fall 2018)

12/31

2016 2017 2018 2019

Task

Split

Milestone

Summary

Rolled Up Task

Rolled Up Split

Rolled Up Milestone

Rolled Up Progress

External Tasks

Project Summary

External Milestone

External Milestone

Inactive Task

Inactive Task

Inactive Milestone

Inactive Summary

Manual Task

Duration-only


Manual Summary

Start-only

Finish-only

Progress

Deadline

SOUTHERN FLIGHT TEST AREA (SFTA) SCHEDULENWIRP, BEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS


Project: SFTADate: Mon 9/25/17

T T

• . .

-- T

0 . • •

I I

. .

~ '

~ '

C

J

I



1 Remedial Investigation (RI) Phase II Report (all OUs) 100% 106 days Fri 4/28/00 Fri 4/28/00 Fri 9/22/00 Fri 9/22/002 First FS, PRAP, and ROD (see also update below) 100% 781 days Mon 3/27/00 Mon 3/27/00 Mon 7/8/02 Mon 7/8/023 Removal Action (In-Situ Chemical Oxidation) 100% 2376 days Mon 6/19/00 Mon 6/19/00 Fri 9/12/08 Fri 9/12/084 Removal Action (In-Situ Thermal Treatment) 100% 1503 days Fri 11/15/02 Fri 11/15/02 Tue 8/12/08 Tue 8/12/0816 Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) Assessment 100% 1816 days Sat 2/9/02 Sat 2/9/02 Mon 9/29/08 Mon 9/29/0830 Feasibility Study (FS) Addendum No. 2 100% 91 days Mon 4/14/08 Mon 4/14/08 Mon 8/18/08 Mon 8/18/0837 Updated Proposed Plan (PRAP) 100% 348 days Wed 3/19/08 Wed 3/19/08 Fri 7/17/09 Fri 7/17/0955 Updated Record of Decision (ROD) 100% 389 days Mon 4/21/08 Mon 4/21/08 Thu 10/15/09 Thu 10/15/0972 Pre-Design Investigation (PDI) 100% 163 days Tue 9/29/09 Tue 9/29/09 Thu 5/13/10 Thu 5/13/1087 Remedial Design (RD) 100% 725 days Mon 3/2/09 Mon 3/2/09 Fri 12/9/11 Fri 12/9/11

119 Remedial Action (RA) 89% 2270 days Mon 5/24/10 Mon 5/24/10 Thu 1/31/19 NA120 Navy Admin. For RA 100% 49 days Mon 5/24/10 Mon 5/24/10 Thu 7/29/10 Thu 7/29/10121 RA Work Plans 100% 214 days Mon 9/26/11 Mon 9/26/11 Thu 7/19/12 Thu 7/19/12129 Install New Monitoring Wells 100% 90 days Tue 5/22/12 Tue 5/22/12 Mon 9/24/12 Mon 9/24/12132 Construction Closeout Report (combined with Site 3 report) 100% 323 days Wed 11/21/12 Wed 11/21/12 Fri 2/14/14 Fri 2/14/14133 Monitored Natural Attenuation (shown through 2018) 85% 2055 days Mon 3/21/11 Mon 3/21/11 Thu 1/31/19 NA134 Round 1 - Semi-Annual (Spring 2011) 100% 110 days Mon 3/21/11 Mon 3/21/11 Fri 8/19/11 Fri 8/19/11135 Round 2 - Semi-Annual (Fall 2011) 100% 129 days Mon 11/14/11 Mon 11/14/11 Thu 5/10/12 Thu 5/10/12136 Revise SAP for Quarterly Sampling 100% 47 days Tue 1/17/12 Tue 1/17/12 Wed 3/21/12 Wed 3/21/12137 Quarterly Round 3 (Spring 2012) through Round 17 (Fall

2015)100% 1007 days Thu 3/22/12 Thu 3/22/12 Fri 1/29/16 Fri 1/29/16

138 Round 18 - Quarterly (Winter 2015) 100% 54 days Tue 12/15/15 Tue 12/15/15 Fri 2/26/16 Fri 2/26/16142 Round 19 - Quarterly (Spring 2016) 100% 60 days Mon 3/21/16 Mon 3/21/16 Fri 6/10/16 Fri 6/10/16146 Round 20 - Quarterly (Summer 2016) 100% 63 days Mon 6/6/16 Mon 6/6/16 Wed 8/31/16 Wed 8/31/16150 Round 21 - Quarterly (Fall 2016) 100% 93 days Mon 9/19/16 Mon 9/19/16 Wed 1/25/17 Wed 1/25/17154 Round 22 - Quarterly (Winter 2016) 100% 48 days Mon 12/5/16 Mon 12/5/16 Wed 2/8/17 Wed 2/8/17158 Round 23 - Quarterly (Spring 2017) 100% 34 days Thu 3/9/17 Thu 3/9/17 Tue 4/25/17 Tue 4/25/17162 Round 24 - Quarterly (Summer 2017) 100% 50 days Mon 6/12/17 Mon 6/12/17 Fri 8/18/17 Fri 8/18/17166 Round 25 - Quarterly (Fall 2017) 4% 62 days Thu 9/14/17 Thu 9/14/17 Fri 12/8/17 NA167 Perform Groundwater Monitoring 100% 2 days Thu 9/14/17 Thu 9/14/17 Fri 9/15/17 Fri 9/15/17168 Prepare Report 0% 55 days Mon 9/25/17 NA Fri 12/8/17 NA169 Submit Report 0% 0 days Fri 12/8/17 NA Fri 12/8/17 NA170 Round 26 - Quarterly (Winter 2017) 0% 60 days Mon 12/11/17 NA Fri 3/2/18 NA171 Perform Groundwater Monitoring 0% 5 days Mon 12/11/17 NA Fri 12/15/17 NA172 Prepare Report 0% 55 days Mon 12/18/17 NA Fri 3/2/18 NA173 Submit Report 0% 0 days Fri 3/2/18 NA Fri 3/2/18 NA174 Round 27- Quarterly (Spring 2018) 0% 60 days Mon 3/26/18 NA Fri 6/15/18 NA175 Perform Groundwater Monitoring 0% 5 days Mon 3/26/18 NA Fri 3/30/18 NA176 Prepare Report 0% 55 days Mon 4/2/18 NA Fri 6/15/18 NA177 Submit Report 0% 0 days Fri 6/15/18 NA Fri 6/15/18 NA178 Round 28- Quarterly (Summer 2018) 0% 60 days Mon 7/16/18 NA Thu 10/4/18 NA179 Perform Groundwater Monitoring 0% 5 days Mon 7/16/18 NA Fri 7/20/18 NA180 Prepare Report 0% 55 days Mon 7/23/18 NA Thu 10/4/18 NA181 Submit Report 0% 0 days Thu 10/4/18 NA Thu 10/4/18 NA182 Round 29- Quarterly (Fall 2018) 0% 60 days Fri 11/9/18 NA Thu 1/31/19 NA183 Perform Groundwater Monitoring 0% 5 days Fri 11/9/18 NA Thu 11/15/18 NA184 Prepare Report 0% 55 days Fri 11/16/18 NA Thu 1/31/19 NA185 Submit Report 0% 0 days Thu 1/31/19 NA Thu 1/31/19 NA186 FY17/18 - LTM Status Review, Eligibility for Close Out 0% 60 days Mon 1/3/00 NA Fri 3/24/00 NA187 OPS/IRACR 0% 129 days Mon 10/2/17 NA Thu 3/29/18 NA188 Prepare Internal Draft 0% 20 days Mon 10/2/17 NA Fri 10/27/17 NA189 Navy Review Internal Draft 0% 15 days Mon 10/30/17 NA Fri 11/17/17 NA190 Prepare Draft Final 0% 60 days Mon 11/20/17 NA Fri 2/9/18 NA191 Regulator Review/Concurrence 0% 20 days Mon 2/12/18 NA Fri 3/9/18 NA192 Prepare Final 0% 14 days Mon 3/12/18 NA Thu 3/29/18 NA193 Submit Final 0% 0 days Thu 3/29/18 NA Thu 3/29/18 NA

Remedial Action (RA)

Construction Closeout Report (combined with Site 3 report)Monitored Natural Attenuation (shown through 2018)

Round 18 - Quarterly (Winter 2015)Round 19 - Quarterly (Spring 2016)

Round 20 - Quarterly (Summer 2016)Round 21 - Quarterly (Fall 2016)

Round 22 - Quarterly (Winter 2016)Round 23 - Quarterly (Spring 2017)

Round 24 - Quarterly (Summer 2017)Round 25 - Quarterly (Fall 2017)

12/8Round 26 - Quarterly (Winter 2017)

3/2Round 27- Quarterly (Spring 2018)

6/15Round 28- Quarterly (Summer 2018)

10/4Round 29- Quarterly (Fall 2018)

1/31

3/29

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Task

Split

Milestone

Summary

Rolled Up Task

Rolled Up Split

Rolled Up Milestone

Rolled Up Progress

External Tasks

Project Summary

External Milestone

External Milestone

Inactive Task

Inactive Task

Inactive Milestone

Inactive Summary

Manual Task

Duration-only


Manual Summary

Start-only

Finish-only

Progress

Deadline

SITE 4 (BTEX PLUME) SCHEDULENWIRP BEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS


Project: Site 4 BTEX PlumeDate: Mon 9/25/17

I I I I I I

I I I

• 0 . .

I I

I

I '

'

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

• •

'

'

I '

'

. . -

'

- • •

I ' '

'

.. •

" . ' ~

.: '

,. .

.~

C

J

I

' .

.

• .: .

ID Task Name %omplet

Duration Start Finish Actual Finish Predeces

1 LUC RD Amendment 100% 1 day Wed 1/14/15 Wed 1/14/15 Wed 1/14/15

2 PCOR 100% 1 day Wed 4/1/15 Wed 4/1/15 Wed 4/1/15

3 Navy Letter Notifying U.S. EPA and MassDEPof Intent to Transfer SFTA

100% 1 day Wed 4/29/15 Wed 4/29/15 Tue 8/4/15

6 PFAS Sampling - SFTA 100% 189 days Wed 12/10/14 Mon 8/31/15 Mon 2/29/16

11 1,4 Dioxane Sampling - SFTA 100% 46 days Thu 4/30/15 Thu 7/2/15 Mon 2/29/16

16 OPS Demonstration Report (original Draft 5/2014)

100% 223 days Fri 5/15/15 Tue 3/22/16 Tue 3/22/16

22 SHPO Determination 88% 245 days Mon 1/4/16 Fri 12/9/16 NA

29 PFAS Management / EPA Decision 100% 69 days Thu 9/1/16 Tue 12/6/16 Tue 12/6/16

30 LTM Addendum for PFAS at SFTA 0% 135 days Thu 12/1/16 Wed 6/7/17 NA

31 Internal Draft 0% 90 days Thu 12/1/16 Wed 4/5/17 NA

32 Draft 100% 0 days Wed 4/5/17 Wed 4/5/17 Wed 4/5/17 31

33 Final - NA - LTM Contractor will incorporate 0% 45 days Thu 4/6/17 Wed 6/7/17 NA 32

34 Revised LUC RD for PFAS 72% 254 days Thu 12/1/16 Tue 11/21/17 NA

35 Internal Draft 100% 90 days Thu 12/1/16 Wed 4/5/17 Wed 4/5/17

36 Draft 0% 45 days Thu 4/6/17 Wed 6/7/17 NA 35

37 Draft Final 100% 75 days Thu 5/18/17 Wed 8/30/17 Wed 8/30/17 36

38 Final 50% 60 days Wed 8/30/17 Tue 11/21/17 NA 37

39 Env. Condition of Property (ECP) 34% 664 days Fri 5/1/15 Wed 11/15/17 NA

40 Start 100% 1 day Fri 5/1/15 Fri 5/1/15 Fri 5/1/15

41 1st Draft Report 100% 4 days Thu 6/23/16 Tue 6/28/16 Tue 6/28/16

42 Updated Site Visit 100% 1 day Tue 6/20/17 Tue 6/20/17 Tue 6/20/17

43 Updated Draft ECP Report 100% 32 days Tue 6/20/17 Wed 8/2/17 Wed 8/2/17

44 Final Report 0% 75 days Thu 8/3/17 Wed 11/15/17 NA 43

45 DEED, Land Use Controls/AUL, Covenants, restrictions, future access

40% 617 days Tue 7/28/15 Wed 12/6/17 NA

46 Internal Draft AUL 100% 16 days Tue 7/28/15 Tue 8/18/15 Tue 8/18/15

47 Draft AUL 31% 270 days Wed 12/9/15 Tue 12/20/16 NA 46

48 Revised Draft AUL 100% 61 days Wed 6/7/17 Wed 8/30/17 Wed 8/30/17 47FS+12

49 Final AUL 0% 60 days Thu 8/31/17 Wed 11/22/17 NA 48

50 AUL Filing 0% 0 days Wed 12/6/17 Wed 12/6/17 NA 49FS+10

51 DEED Preparation 0% 45 days Sat 9/30/17 Thu 11/30/17 NA

52 GSA Deed Transfer 0% 15 days Fri 12/1/17 Thu 12/21/17 NA 51

53 Massport Board Meeting 0% 21 days Thu 10/19/17 Thu 11/16/17 NA

54 October 19, 2017 0% 1 day Thu 10/19/17 Thu 10/19/17 NA

55 November 16, 2017 0% 1 day Thu 11/16/17 Thu 11/16/17 NA

4/5

12/6

Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Decer 4th Quarter 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter

2017

Task

Split

Milestone

Summary

Rolled Up Task

Rolled Up Split

Rolled Up Milestone

Rolled Up Progress

External Tasks

Project Summary

External Milestone

External Milestone

Inactive Task

Inactive Task

Inactive Milestone

Inactive Summary

Manual Task

Duration-only


Manual Summary

Start-only

Finish-only

Progress

Deadline

SOUTHERN FLIGHT TEST AREA (SFTA) PROPERTY TRANSFER SCHEDULE

NWIRP BEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS

blue text = completed; NA = not available; duration = working days Page 1 of 1

Project: SFTADate: Mon 9/25/17

~ '''''''''''''''''

; ·''''''''''''''' • •

I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I

I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

[

]

• 00!!!!!!! I